HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chris@ponder.csci.unt.edu (chris gleaves)
Subject: Re: English usage
Organization: University of North Texas, Denton
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:42:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.230410.25848@terminator.cc.umich.edu> ajd@itl.itd.umich.edu (Arthur Delano) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.200138.7674@mercury.unt.edu>  I wrote:

  [ stuff I wrote deleted for readability ]

>
>Uh-huh.
>Mmmm hm.
>
>And then you have to buy replacements for all the things he would've
>stolen anyhow, as jewelry pockmarked with lead shot is of no use to
>anyone.
>
>AjD
>and the insurance won't pay for it

Actually, I would not shoot the person to prevent them from stealing 
something.  The intruder is a threat to my family since he/she/it CHOSE to
enter my house.

Anyway, buck shot would destroy the jewelry, not pock mark it. :)

chris
chris@unt.edu
From: bae@Auspex.COM (Brian Ehrmantraut)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Store bought brew
Date: 29 Aug 92 00:20:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.100714.9729@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
> In article <14323@auspex-gw.auspex.com>, bae@Auspex.COM (Brian Ehrmantraut) writes:

>>	You know, DC, it is quite evident that you are not even remotely 
>>familiar with the facts of the Goetz cases, and are just making this stuff up 
>>as you go along, basing your "analysis" on popular media accounts.
> 
>But, I suppose we should give your opinion a valid chance to be proven. So,
>since you have made a claim, please either support it (show were I have relayed
>false information)

	Sure.  In article <1992Aug23.194538.9655@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, you
state, in reference to Goetz:

> Yes, he was carrying a loaded gun in a subway. He walked over to his already
> shot panhandlers, and while one of them was bleeding on the ground, he said,
> "You don't look like you are hurt bad enough." and fired some more slugs into
> his back.

	Your statement is quite simply false. The only way that you would come 
to believe this information would be from popular accounts. Case closed, eh?

	Your attempt at terrorism and bullying is simply not going to work.

-- 
		Brian A. Ehrmantraut

BELL:   voice:(408) 492-0900  fax: (408) 492-0909  
USnail:	Auspex Systems, 2952 Bunker Hill Lane, Santa Clara, CA 95054
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Unnecessary hostility in talk.rape
Date: 29 Aug 92 00:58:43 EST
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Aug28.193712.5099@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
> In article <1992Aug27.095705.9728@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>In article <14321@auspex-gw.auspex.com>, bae@Auspex.COM (Brian Ehrmantraut) writes:
>>> 	Gee, DC, with the clues Andy provided, I managed to find the relevant
>>> sections of California law, and it only took about five minutes.  I didn't
>>> even have to leave my office.  Surely you, with all of your supposed legal
>>> expertise, could do as well...
>>
>>	Did you correspond with him to verify this?
> 
> No.

Then how do you KNOW he has the same statute? Talk to a live psychic?

> 
>>	Let me state it clear and simply--the only reason Andy might have for
>>not divulging the statute--if one were to exist--is because he knows I will
>>simply dig into the annotations and show it is not relevant to the discussion
>>at hand.
> 
> DC sure huffs and puffs a lot for someone who won't/can't use an
> index.  Is the lack of a cite really the only thing that keeps him
> from making his argument, or is he hoping for another way out because
> he knows/suspects that he's all wrong?

No, I want you to lock yourself in, because otherwise I will dig out
annotations and you will say. "Nope, wrong law. Ha-ha. Can't find the right
law. Looks like I am right and you are wrong." Until you say "This is the law I
am talking about," there is no point in posting annotations. Because all I am
refuting is A law, and not YOUR law (at least, that is what you will claim).

You can try and twists things around all you want, but you know two days after
you publicly announce your all-encompasing law, I will post entire annotations
that nullify it. I will not just post cites to the annotations, I will post
the decisions which limit your law out of this debate.

DC


Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: jcmarx@bnr.ca (JC Marx)
Subject: Re: Unnecessary hostility in talk.rape
Reply-To: jcmarx@bnr.ca
Organization: Bell-Northern Research
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 11:56:01 GMT

I agree, there is very much unnecessary hostility in talk.rape. In many
instances, I have been the victim (pun intended) of some of this unnecessary
hostility. I have posted my opinion regarding a certain issue, then SLAM WHAM
BAM. And let me tell you all (yall) - DC is not the only one venting frustration
in this group. I have heard people say things like (paraphrased) "Cops carry
their guns stupidly". I have also been insulted (by people in this group)
because my father was involved with law enforcement. Yes, initially, I flamed
up the 'ole torch and started to burn out a response, but then, after analyzing
the nature of the insults, I realized I was doing exactly what these stressed
out individuals wanted - drifting from the subject.

I take it upon myself to moderate my own contributions to a given thread. If
I see a highly frustrated person trying to vent their hostility on me (but not
contributing to the thread) I ignore them. If they have to drift so far away
from the thread, then I tell myself they feel threatened because they have lost
their point and do not have the umph to admit it - a victory for me.

I think it is very unfortunate that so many people subscribe to this group for
no other reason than to argue with others. It really is too bad they can't
learn to be more open minded and appreciate someone else's point of view - even
though it differs from their own. In these cases, though, it is the closed
minded individual who is losing.

One man's opinion...
JC

P.S. As usual, all flames and insults are welcome, and ignored.

Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: Unnecessary hostility in talk.rape
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:39:31 GMT

In article <9208251917.AA03130@ros6.gsfc.nasa.gov> alan@ROS6.GSFC.NASA.GOV (Alan Smale) writes:
>What do all the following people have in common?
>
>Kathi. Ataylor. Sam. Kim Posey. Rolfe. More than one Susan. Synth.
>Tim, I think. Probably a few other people I've forgotten about.
>
>They have posted to talk.rape. And they have been attacked by DC,
>called deliberate liars, idiots, ignoramuses or worse, on the basis of

    CFV: talk.rape.lists ??

  Remember that on usenet vinegar draws more flies than honey. I would say
that I agree to a large degree with much of what DC says. At least with
the initial articles in a thread. When I post, I often am saying things that
might have been said by DC. I don't usually end up in flame wars. In fact,
the responce to my articles is usually quite low in number and volume.
   DC is only slightly more 'verbally imaginative' than I am. If me and DC
both posted an article sayin about the same thing, he would probably get
a lot of responces, and I would get few. I think this is because he says
things that are (perhaps intentionally) somewhat harsh, and more open
to rebuttal. So he is vigourously rebutted, and another argument begins.
   My point is that it takes two to tango. I know that some of the people
on the list have gotten no better than they have given in terms of insults
and slurs.

Danz

-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.
From: bae@Auspex.COM (Brian Ehrmantraut)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: BE's attorney.
Date: 29 Aug 92 17:14:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.022901.9768@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
> In article <14368@auspex-gw.auspex.com>, bae@Auspex.COM (Brian Ehrmantraut) writes:
> > 	I even checked with my attorney today, and had my, and Andy's, 
> > conclusions affirmed.  DC is full of hot air.
> 
> This attorney have a name?

	Yes, you insinuating weasel.  Or are you about to claim that he doesn't
exist either?
	
	If anyone else is interested in a pointer to a lawyer in northern
California who is well versed in CA self-defense law, and who makes a good part
of his living on such cases, please drop me a note, and I'll gladly put you 
in touch with him.  

-- 
		Brian A. Ehrmantraut

BELL:   voice:(408) 492-0900  fax: (408) 492-0909  
USnail:	Auspex Systems, 2952 Bunker Hill Lane, Santa Clara, CA 95054
From: bae@Auspex.COM (Brian Ehrmantraut)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Unnecessary hostility in talk.rape
Summary: Twit
Date: 27 Aug 92 07:32:52 GMT
Originator: news@auspex-gw.Auspex.COM

In article <1992Aug26.235013.9720@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
> In article <1992Aug26.195717.27603@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
> > If you're not going to look at the penal code, statute numbers are
> > useless, and if you are, they're unnecessary.  That's why I often
> > don't bother.  Sometimes I do provide them.  It depends on the
> > discussion.  In this one, I've no interest in making life easy for DC.
> 
> I say you are making this 'code' up. I am stating that you either are:
> 
> 1. Not being honest.
> 2. Not being aware of what you 'alleged; code says or how it has been
> interpreted.

	Gee, DC, with the clues Andy provided, I managed to find the relevant
sections of California law, and it only took about five minutes.  I didn't
even have to leave my office.  Surely you, with all of your supposed legal
expertise, could do as well...

	Then again, perhaps you simply don't know what you are talking about.

-- 
		Brian A. Ehrmantraut

BELL:   voice:(408) 492-0900  fax: (408) 492-0909  
USnail:	Auspex Systems, 2952 Bunker Hill Lane, Santa Clara, CA 95054
From: bae@Auspex.COM (Brian Ehrmantraut)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Unnecessary hostility in talk.rape
Date: 29 Aug 92 00:11:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.095705.9728@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
> In article <14321@auspex-gw.auspex.com>, bae@Auspex.COM (Brian Ehrmantraut) writes:
>> 	Gee, DC, with the clues Andy provided, I managed to find the relevant
>> sections of California law, and it only took about five minutes.  I didn't
>> even have to leave my office.  Surely you, with all of your supposed legal
>> expertise, could do as well...
>> 
>> 	Then again, perhaps you simply don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> 	How do you know you found the same code Andy is referring to? 

	Because the statutes in question are obvious to even the most casual 
reader.  I'll quote the text of part of one of them here:

  	 "No person shall purchase, possess or use any
          tear gas weapon which expels a projectile, or
          which expels the tear gas by any method other
          than an aerosol spray, or which is of a type,
          or size of container, other than authorized by
          regulation of the Department of Justice."

	Now, with your legendary research skills, you should be able to locate
this section, and the other applicable law.  You might also determine what the
definition of "tear gas" is, and how that has been interpreted...

	Ah, but to do that, you'd have to know what you are doing.  And if you
did it, you'd have to admit that you are wrong...

	(Note that the text I posted is *not* the section which is charged
against most often...)

> The California statutes are divided up into multi-volume sets each dealing
> individual sub-sets of California law.

	So?  (Admittedly, if you were research-impaired, you could get bogged
down in all sorts of stuff about guard certification...)

> 	Did you correspond with him to verify this?

	No.

> 	Let me state it clear and simply--the only reason Andy might have for
> not divulging the statute--if one were to exist--is because he knows I will
> simply dig into the annotations and show it is not relevant to the discussion
> at hand.
> 
> 	I also claim that is why YOU do not post it.

	Wrong again.  I also read all relevant cases, and the annotations, and
while I found a great deal of interesting material, mostly relating to police
abuses of power, none of it disproved Andy's claim (though one case sort-of 
affirmed it).  I will gladly mail the text of the relevant statutes to any 
interested party, except you, DC.  You'll have to do your own research.

	
-- 
		Brian A. Ehrmantraut

BELL:   voice:(408) 492-0900  fax: (408) 492-0909  
USnail:	Auspex Systems, 2952 Bunker Hill Lane, Santa Clara, CA 95054
From: bae@Auspex.COM (Brian Ehrmantraut)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Store bought brew
Date: 27 Aug 92 07:46:17 GMT
Originator: news@auspex-gw.Auspex.COM

In article <1992Aug25.003354.9670@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
> And, you do not need to give the damned disclaimer unless you are acting as an
> attorney, and debating what the law says in a non-advisory role is NOT playing
> advocate.

	Well, DC, while you are blathering about things legal, why don't you 
give us your assessment of the civil exposure due to (mis)using WD-40 as a 
defensive weapon?

-- 
		Brian A. Ehrmantraut

BELL:   voice:(408) 492-0900  fax: (408) 492-0909  
USnail:	Auspex Systems, 2952 Bunker Hill Lane, Santa Clara, CA 95054  
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: DURFLING@AC.GRIN.EDU (Finagle, etc. Durflinger,Edward M)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: (none)
Date: 2 Sep 1992 13:40:37 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Subj: HELP FIND TAMMY ZYWICKI

__________________________________
I am posting the following to soc.women and some other newsgroups becuase 
this matter of all matters should concern women and people who wish the 
world to be a safer place.
--durfling@ac.grin.edu
_________________________________________________________
WE NEED YOUR HELP.
	
	We are friends of Tammy Zywicki, a Grinnell College Senior who 
disappeared Sunday, August 23, around 1:00 pm.  Tammy was travelling from 
Chicago to Grinnell, Iowa, on Interstate 80 when apparently she experienced 
car trouble and stopped at the side of the road somewhere near La Salle, 
Illinois.  She was last seen at her car being assisted by a person or 
persons and a semi trailer was parked ahead of her car.

	When Tammy left Chicago, she was wearing dark shorts and a white 
T-shirt with the word "PRIVATE'" (accent over the 'E') printed on it.  
She is 5'2", 120 lbs, blond hair, green eyes, b. 3-13-71, and was wearing 
contact lenses.

	Recently a body of a woman resembling Tammy but with auburn hair 
was found in a ditch close to Springfield, MO.  Authorities have not 
confirmed the identity of this woman as Tammy, but it is know that she was 
wearing clothing that Tammy was also known to wear. If this woman is not 
Tammy, she could be the victim of a serial killer that also was involved in 
Tammy's disappearance.

	You can help Tammy and us by distributing this information as 
widely as possible. If anyone has any information about either of these 
cases, you may either email me at DURFLING@AC.GRIN.EDU or call the Illinois 
Police Department at (815)224-1150. 

Thank You,
The Grinnell Community
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: loki@acca.nmsu.edu (Pistolero)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Theoretical book
Date: 30 Aug 92 03:08:17 GMT
Organization: New Mexico State University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Daniel Zabetakis (dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu) wrote:
: 
:    Just to start a new thread that doesn't revolve around DC and friends...
: 
:   How would you react if you saw this book in a store:
: 
:      Rape: How to commit it, and how to enjoy it
: 
:   And it really seemed to be a manual for committing rape. The table of
: contents went something like this:
: 
: Chapter3: Defending against counterattack
: 
:    What would be your reaction? Would you read it? Would you try to ban it?
: 
: DanZ
: 
I'd look through it just for chapter 3... it could help point out weak 
points in the defensive strategies I know/teach.  I certainly wouldn't
contribute to the livelyhood of the author, though.  :/

--
"Master... Master...                       (To The Tune of Metallica's)
	Master of Science is your degree.  ('Master of Puppets')
	You're too dumb for a PhD.              loki@acca.nmsu.edu
	Should have studied for the GRE!    dftaylor@cechem.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Self-Defense in the Home
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:14:14 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.113321.9702@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>> Can you tell us which state it is that does not permit the use of
>> deadly force to prevent the commission of a felony in your own home?
>
>The rule of thumb is that the farther west you go, the more they permit deadly
>force at the drop of a hat--except for CA.

That's an interesting rule, but it doesn't appear to be accurate
enough to be useful.

WRT use of force to protect property, CA doesn't appear to be
significantly different than most other western states.  (With maybe a
couple of exceptions, they're all pretty down on it even though they
all allow certain practices that are inconsistent with that rule.)

WRT use of force to protect people, CA's "castle doctrine" is a
statutory rebuttable presumption of threat.  In some other states, it
may be case law, but it isn't much diferent.

CA does have stricter weapon possession/carry statutes, but that's a
separate question.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Unnecessary hostility in talk.rape
Date: 29 Aug 92 02:24:31 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <14363@auspex-gw.auspex.com>, bae@Auspex.COM (Brian Ehrmantraut) writes:
> In article <1992Aug27.095705.9728@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>> In article <14321@auspex-gw.auspex.com>, bae@Auspex.COM (Brian Ehrmantraut) writes:
>>> 	Gee, DC, with the clues Andy provided, I managed to find the relevant
>>> sections of California law, and it only took about five minutes.  I didn't
>>> even have to leave my office.  Surely you, with all of your supposed legal
>>> expertise, could do as well...
>>> 
>>> 	Then again, perhaps you simply don't know what you are talking about.
>> 
>> 	How do you know you found the same code Andy is referring to? 
> 
> 	Because the statutes in question are obvious to even the most casual 
> reader.  I'll quote the text of part of one of them here:
> 
>   	 "No person shall purchase, possess or use any
>           tear gas weapon which expels a projectile, or
>           which expels the tear gas by any method other
>           than an aerosol spray, or which is of a type,
>           or size of container, other than authorized by
>           regulation of the Department of Justice."
> 

Yes or no Andy, is this the code you are referring to?

(Lock yourself in and let the fun begin, if you got the balls.)

DC



Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Cosgrove Still Doesn't Get It (Was: Ataylor obsession with trying to win (just) one.)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<ATAYLOR.92Aug28152621@gauss.nmsu.edu>
	<1992Aug29.021245.9764@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:02:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.021245.9764@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:

	Some 200 lines in which he shows that he still is missing
	the point.

	Talk.rape isn't a contest to see who can get the most
	net.points, nor is it an adjunct to alt.flame (where
	I have set the followup....no doubt Cosgrove won't
	take the hint).

	Talk.rape is, from what I can see, a group where rape
	survivors and others concerned about sexual assault
	can discuss this particular crime and the  implications
	(social, personal, etc.) thereof. It's true that discussion
	gets heated at times, as rape is an issue that raises
	people's ire..and many folks who post here have quite
	personal reasons for the passion with which they disagree.

	Cosgrove's rantings, well-publicized desire to humiliate
	any who disagree with him and repetitious displays of
	gross insensitivity towards survivors of rape don't	
	seem to fit the purpose of talk.rape, so far as I can
	see.






Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: slarsen@monet.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Unnecessary hostility in talk.rape
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:58:39 GMT
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame

In article <1992Aug26.183931.25726@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>
>  Remember that on usenet vinegar draws more flies than honey. 

I'm a honey-gal myself.  I try to avoid insulting and I try to 
avoid insulters.  I'm not saying I've been insulted, though, just 
not willing to stand in the line of fire!

>   DC is only slightly more 'verbally imaginative' than I am. If me and DC
>both posted an article sayin about the same thing, he would probably get
>a lot of responces, and I would get few. 

Ah, but is the purpose of posting to get responses or to get them read?
I post in the hopes that someone reads it and gets something out of it.
I read in the hopes that I will learn something or gain insight from 
another's experiences.

I personally find posts that feature >A >>B >>>C >>>>A >>>>>B in the 
opening to be the most unreadable of posts.  A B and C may feel that 
something is being gained, but I wonder how many lurkers actually 
take the time to weed through the statements, counter-statements and 
counter-counter-statements.  When a thread reaches that level of 
ripeness, I have long since quit reading it.

So, as long as posters appear to be more interested in scoring points
and getting in digs, as opposed to exchanging ideas, I will remain 
on the sidelines.

Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
From: fischer@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (W. T. Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Moderated group?
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:37:18 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana


Does anyone know if there is a moderated group or listserv which discusses 
rape?  Thanks.


W.T. Fischer
--
Internet: fischer@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people 
to do nothing.  

After E. Burke, 1795.
Newsgroups: talk.rape