HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: misc.kids

dcs@witsend.tnet.com (D. C. Sessions) writes:

> Perhaps because they never really grow up?

> I know it sounds like a cheap shot, but really!  Best I can tell, mens'
> self-images freeze somewhere around twenty.  After that, they may
> compromise with reality and minivans but in their hearts of hearts
> they see themselves as belonging in muscle cars, fighter planes, etc.
> How else to explain the fanatical identification with spectator sports?

  Perhaps.  Then there are some of us who have been adults since age 4 or
so.  I've known for a long time I couldn't fit into a fighter plane, and
I've been driving a mini-van for almost 6 years now (I'm 27 and still
single if it matters).  I'm only interested in spectator sports if I am on
one of the teams or if one or more of the players is a close friend of mine.

  Of course, when I'm 40 or so I may decide to have a childhood and get a
sports car--if they ever make them large enough for my 6'4" frame.  Maybe
even a fighter plane--who knows?  Please don't make me watch spectator
sports, though.
From: llf@alice.att.com (alice!llf)
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Re: Caffeine during Pregnancy
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:43:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.23669
Reply-To: llf@alice.UUCP (alice!llf)
Distribution: usa
Organization: New Jersey State Home for Bewildered Kittens

In <22370@venera.isi.edu> sdreynol@isi.edu (Sam D Reynolds) writes:

   >than their childs long term development.  IF YOU ARE PREGNANT, PLEASE
   >DO NOT DRINK ALCOHOL!

My ob/gyn would disavow me if I disregarded her specific orders to have
drinks to relax in my later stages of pregnancy.  Your absolutism only gives
pregnant women more to worry about, and worrying is bad for the fetus.

Lynda
-- 
					Member HASA, Atheist-Scum Division
"The One Horseman and Three Pedestrians of the Apocalypse" - Terry Pratchet
Newsgroups: misc.kids
From: holly@mailhub.scf.lmsc.lockheed.com (Holly Wise)
Subject: Re: Children & Sex
Organization: Lockheed Santa Cruz, CA.
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 20:29:37 GMT

In article <8316.9209091346@bonzo.xylogics.com> rollo@xylogics.com (Dena Rollo) writes:




>So, the fact that your 10 yr. old daughter
>may have engaged in sexual play with her
>10 yr. old uncle wouldn't worry me, as long
>as the kids are evenly matched in age/experience.

I read in the paper about a month ago how two 7 year old boys RAPED their 
1st grade classmate.  I didn't think hormones would allow that and was 
rather shocked.

My daughter, between 4 and 6, was molested by another boy a year older than 
her.  A neighbor boy.  The parents did nothing so I kept my daughter home.  
Once at school he got her in the bathroom.  This was when she was 7 and he 
8.  I called CPS.  They wouldn't do anything about it since they were 
considered "Peers".  The school would though and we have since moved.  I 
wouldn't say not to worry.  About the infant, I think the infant is safe.  
However, since I read all the time about 11 year olds having sex.  I think 
the mother is justified in her worrying.
-----
holly@mailhub.scf.lmsc.lockheed.com
Newsgroups: misc.kids
From: lauraf@classy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Laura Floom)
Subject: Re: Crib recommendation wanted
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:54:41 GMT

In article <BuBvnG.9q1@acsu.buffalo.edu> oispeggy@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Peggy Brown) writes:
>
>He wants us to have a playpen instead of a crib and have the baby 
>sleep in the playpen.  He says they're safe and much harder for 
>the baby to climb out of.  This is our first, as if you couldn't 
>tell.

My son thru himself out of his playpen at 16 months. Landed on his back. He
was having a tantrum at the time and didnt notice if he hurt himself or not.
The playpen was put away that day. he stayed in his crib until he was two,
when I stopped him from hurling himslef out head first. Now he is in a
youth bed.

I dont think the playpen will give you the protection you are assuming, but
will be much harder on your back.

My experiences told me to never leave Jeffrey is his crib when he was having`
a tantrum. I would always calm him down first. I learned that after the playpen
incident. I was trying to calm him down when he did the head first trick out
of the crib. I was there to catch him.

When he was calm he knew it was not acceptable to climb out of the crib.

Laura Floom

Newsgroups: misc.kids
From: reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland)
Subject: Re: Folic Acid prevents spinabifida!
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:02:14 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.214242.4796@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
>
>I heard on the radio this morning that a lack of folic acid (a B
>vitamin) during the 4th week of pregnancy is now thought to
>be responsible for Spinabifida.  
>
>The interviewee said that HALF of all the cases of Spinabifida could be
>eliminated by this simple element of nutrition.  The problem is that
>the 4th week is a time when women may not even know they are
>pregnant.

This is news?  I remember my wife making sure her vitamin supplement
contained folic acid back when we conceived Sarah (in March of 1988)
for just this reason.  I thought it was common knowledge.  No?

=====================================================================
Reid Kneeland
reid@tti.com  (that's MISTER reid@tti.com to you!)
Transaction Technology Inc., Santa Monica, CA, USA (310) 450-9111 x2499
The opinions expressed above do not necessarily etc etc...

Never trust a man who can count to 1,023 on his fingers.
From: kati@glnserv.UUCP (Lady Dragon)
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Re: Pregnant and wedding rings too tight
Keywords: what did you do?
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 08:50:53 CDT
Organization: Vermi-net, Houston, Tx. 77098

grace@maui.cs.ucla.edu (Grace Chen-Ellis) writes:
> I'm in my 4th pregnancy -- with each pregnancy, I've taken the rings off
> earlier and earlier -- with this one, they came off at 10 weeks.
> I started off this pregnancy  20 lbs heavier than when I was married, so,
> the rings got tighter faster.  I've always replace the wedding rings with
> a ruby ring that my husband gave me a LONG time ago, which I've always
> worn on my right hand (so, it was always bigger than my wedding rings).
> I always figured that it was better to take them off myself than to
> have them so tight that they had to be cut off (something that ALMOST
> happened with my first pregnancy).
>
> grace

I just thought of something that I didn't try when I was pregnant, and
won't have the chance to try. How about moving them to the smaller
fingers, such as the pinky? I used the chain around the neck idea myself.


* * email address: nuchat!xcluud!glnserv!kati * Houston, Texas, USA, Earth * *




Newsgroups: misc.kids
From: mbr@merk.com (Mark Rosenthal)
Subject: Re: kid that wants to sleep in bed w/parents
Keywords: bed, sleep trouble
Organization: Technology Partners, Inc.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 06:51:19 GMT

In article <4079@novavax.UUCP> vaccaro@novavax.UUCP (N. Trafford Vaccaro) writes:
>Any hints? Maybe a nice thin book dedicated to the subject? Thanks!

It may not be as thin as you'd like, but try:

	Nighttime Parenting
	How to Get Your Baby and Child to Sleep
	William Sears, M.D.

It is published by the La Leche League.

Good luck.

        mbr@merk.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification (was: Killing in defense of possessions?)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 02:23:42 GMT

In article <c1zC02YN21Wm01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>In article <1992Sep12.153952.19740@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) 
>writes:
>> I don't know what you mean by "a believer in jury nullification." Jury
>> nullification is a fact, not a belief. 
>
>Well, so is capital punishment, but when people say "I don't believe in 
>capital punishment", their statement still conveys a meaning.

But the statement "I don't believe in capital punishment" means a 
conscious choice about a criminal-justice policy. Jury nullification,
in contrast, is simply an *effect* caused by the prohibition against
retrying acquitted defendants. 

The two notions are categorically distinct.

Thus, while I'd know what is meant by "a believer in capital punishment,"
I'm much less clear on what is meant by "a believer in jury
nullification" in the context in which Eric said it. Even those who
never have heard the words "jury nullification" may turn out to be jurors
who nullify.



--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
(617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Once more into the breach, dear friends (was: Re Ed babbles again
Keywords: Life, liberty, property
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:22:13 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Sep14.142916.28094@Princeton.EDU>, egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
> In article <19165@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
> >In article <1992Sep13.063733.25098@Princeton.EDU> 
> >egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
# ##. . . Lesseee, the sysop has Sacred Property Rights and bozo...NOT.
# ##Sacred Property Rights to "her" computer (actually the property of a
# ##large corporation), devil a doubt where the Green Ants Dream.  Sacred
# ##Property Rights not mentioned in the Constitution, . . . [Ed Nilges]
# #
# #     ". . . nor shall any State deprive any person of life, 
# #      liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
# #                   -- U. S. Const., Amendment XIV, Section 1.
# #
# #					-- Matt Rosenblatt
# #                                        (matt@amsaa.brl.mil)
# 
# Read it again, Matt.  It conditions property on the due process of law,
# and so makes it indeed possible for a legislature to subordinate
# property rights to other considerations.  Contrast the language of the

Ed's ignorance is exceeded only by his obnoxiousness.  The 14th
Amendment was written to SPECIFICALLY prevent state legislatures
from passing laws that denied equal rights for blacks.  The clear
intent was to make sure that an individual would lose life, liberty,
or property ONLY as a result of court proceedings against an individual.

# First Amendment, which performs the reverse subordination in its
# language of "Congress [and by extension any other US lawmaker group]
# shall make no law...".  

Sorry, again, Ed.  The First Amendment's extension to "any other
US lawmaker group" is BECAUSE of the 14th Amendment.

# Amendment XIV makes it possible for a Socialist legislature to
# nationalize the auto industry for if a [constitutionally valid] law is
# passed depriving the "legal person" Ford Motor Company of its property,
# then that's "due process."  Amendment I PROHIBITS the "due process" from
# getting started in its very wording.

A legislative action that deprived Ford of its property would be
obligated to compensate them for that property being taken, and
that property is only to be taken for public use (Amendment 5).
Compensation could only be avoided if a law was passed that was
violated by Ford, and whose penalty included confiscation of all
assets.  Even then, the law would have to be generally applicable
to all equivalent entities, or it would run afoul of the bill of
attainder provision (Art. I, sec. 9).


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
There can be no peace as long as AB 2601 lives.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: ted@cs.brown.edu (Tony Davis)
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification (was: Killing in defense of possessions?)
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 21:33:34 GMT

In article <BuL1LM.DpC@world.std.com> srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:
> ted@cs.brown.edu (Tony Davis) writes:
> >It is clear that the
> >founders intended nullification to be possible, yes?

> Again, this was a side effect.  The role of the jury is to be a
> barrier between the accused and the state.  That barrier protects
> the defendant from state-sponsored persecution.

Didn't the founders have a second purpose?  The second role of the
jury is to protect the people from bad laws; juries would refuse to
convict those accused of unjust laws.  That is, the founders (in
whatever order) (1) created a system that serves the jury role that
you mention, (2) realized that as a side effect it also serves the
jury role that I mention, and (3) decided that the side effect was
also a proper role for juries.  Hence, by the founders own reasoning,
what may look like a side effect was intended to be there and is
therefore a right, yes?


> >Doesn't this cause a conflict:  one needs to swear to give
> >away a right in order to be on a jury, but that right is one intended
> >to be guaranteed to juries?

[ As a side issue, assuming (even hypothetically) that the option to
nullify is a right, would this conflict make such oaths unenforcable
or make the breaking of such oaths unpunishable?  As I recall, current
case law says no, but has anyone used this conflict as a defense? ]

> A good analysis, Tony, but only if the option to nullify is deemed
> a right.  Juries were popular in early America because they helped
> protect "a system of laws, not of men."  Nullification turns that
> ideal on its head.

I just noticed the "J.D." so I probably shouldn't push the point.
Nonetheless, into the breach ...

As I remember it, "a system of laws, not of men" was support for a
written constitution not for juries in particular.  Juries were
deemed necessary as another balance between the people and the state.
As such they can serve both purposes above.  My suggestion is that
the founders consciously intended both purposes.  If that is the case
then the option to nullify would be deemed a right.  I was hoping that
someone could cite the particular Federalist paper or other document
where the issue of nullification was explicitly discussed.


Tony Davis
ted@cs.brown.edu
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Software Rental Act?
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:54:25 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Sep11.131034.2532@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>, edp@math.zko.dec.com 
(Eric Postpischil) writes:

> Can anybody tell me whatever became of S. 198 of the 101st Congress, 1st
> Session?  That was the Software Rental Act they were considering in
> 1989.  Did it pass?

Yes.  It's now codified at 17 USC 109.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Punitive Damages (was: Tort Reform)
Date: 7 Sep 1992 14:55:01 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <1992Sep5.150322.14927@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>In article <1992Aug31.175134.23190@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, 
>dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892) said:
>
...
>
>(For the record, a while ago I floated here and in sci.economics the
>idea that maybe *nobody* should get the money -- that it should be
>taken from the defendant and simply thrown down a black hole or
>something.  However, several people who claim to understand economics
>explained to me that destroying money is almost exactly equivalent to
>giving the money to the federal government.  Oh well.)
>
>-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>


How about giving it to a basketful of charities whose mission is totally 
unrelated to the factors in the case at hand..

Richard Foy  
Redondo Beach CA       Standard Disclaimer
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Once more into the breach, dear friends (was: Re: Ted babbles again
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 13:27:20 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.161300.5813@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>>>But according to the arguments of Ted "Tedster" Frank, Charles "Goofus"
>>>Perez, Henry "Jackanapes" Schaffer, and Chris "Knucklehead" Morton, Adolf
>>>is a noble citizen exercising his right of free speech, is he not?
>>>Criticising poor Adolf creates a "chilling effect" on his freedom
>>>of speech and as such should not be done.  Booting him off the net would
>>>violate, would it not, Adolf's First Amendment rights.

Then Ted Frank writes:

>>Sorry.  Don't agree with statements two or three in your paragraph.
>>You'll just have to misattribute them to someone else, because I
>>certainly never made any arguments of the kind.

Then Ed Nilges responds in a sort of non sequitur:

>Tedster, you cannot escape the logical consequences of your silly
>beliefs.  If you support the hate speech decision, then you must let
>"Adolf" post.

It should be noted that one may disagree with sentences two and three
in Ed Nilges's first paragraph and still support the Supreme Court's
decision in R.A.V. ("the hate speech decision"). I agree with the decision
in R.A.V., but I am certain mere criticism of someone's postings does not
create a "chilling effect" as that term is used in the context of 
American jurisprudence. Nor does the First Amendment require that a
private-entity Usenet site administrator give anyone access, or deny
that administrator any right to "boot him off the net" by, say, closing
his account.

R.A.V. concerned a different legal issue: whether it is Constitutional
to allow state action that punishes someone for expressing hateful
ideas.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
(617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung
From: edwardk@cup.portal.com (edward chungfan kwok)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Juridiscations, patents and such
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 22:47:44 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)


>Craig Cryptographer, an U.S. citizen living in USA, logs in to a
>machine in Finland, and writes, edits, tests, runs and finishes a
>package of cryptographic software while logged on to the machine.  The
>machine's mass storage is in Finland, while Craig uses a virtual
>terminal connection (rlogin) to log into the machine in Finland.  The
>cryptographic software never enters USA, exists in USA or is run in
>USA, except when Antti Arkistomies, a Finnish citizen, takes snapshots
>of the software (legally, since Craig has decided to allow public
>dissemination of the software), puts them to a ftp site and Hugo
>Hamster, an U.S. citizen living in USA, ftp's the software to USA.
>Hugo however doesn't figure out what the software does or how to run
>it, but emails it to his ten best friends and uploads it to five BBS's
>anyway.
>
>It so happens that the cryptographic algorithm is also patented in USA
>and the patent holder Hoarders Inc., will vigorously sue anyone who
>they feel is violating their patent rights and will grant permission
>to use the patented algorithm for a one-time usage fee of ten thousandff
>US dollars only.
>
>Then, Cathy Citizen, an U.S. citizen living in USA, finds and
>downloads the software from a BBS, compiles and runs it, and only then
>reads the documentation.  Cathy Citizen, as any honest citizen should,
>is relatively familiar with U.S. munititions export control laws, all
>U.S. patents, U.S. patent laws etc. and as any honest citizen should,
>at once reports the incident to the U.S. government and Hoarders Inc.
>
>Faithful to their role in the story, the U.S. government prosecutes
>anyone mentioned above plus the BBS operator and owner, and Hoarders
>Inc. sues everyone involved demanding 50 million dollars of compensation.
>
>... and then what happens?  (for the sake of argument, you can also
>describe cases with Craig being Finnish, Hugo being Finnish and
>operating from Finland and other variations)
>

By creating a functional copy of the cryptographic software, Craig
Cartographer exported software to finland, and thereby possibly violated
export laws.  Nobody else violated the technology export law.

Unless there exists prior art to render Hoader's patent to be invalid,
every one who make, use or sell the software is liable.  Damages accrue
when the infringer receives notice of Hoader's patent.  They have a 
choice of taking a license or refrain from using the software.  Triple damage
accrues if the violator willful continue the infringement.  They are
liable only for actual damages if they reasonable believe that they either
not infringe or that the patent is invalid.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: markr@mot.com (Mark)
Subject: Re: Fort Wayne: Landlords Must Evict Drug-Dealing Tenants
Reply-To: markr@mcil.comm.mot.com
Organization: MCIL
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 16:30:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep5.013045.4143@athena.mit.edu> jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.191418.13194@hsv3.lsil.com>
>	richhg@hsv3.lsil.com (Rich Henderson-Gragg) writes:
>
>>    The city council isn't completly out of the loop.  If landlords have
>>no protection they will eventually leave and no longer collect rent or
>>pay taxes ( both property and other ).
>
>This isn't true in Cambridge, Massachusetts -- under local rent control laws
>you need approval to stop renting.  I don't know what the penalty is, but I
>expect continued refusal to rent will result in the city taking the building
>to pay taxes or fines.  Then the city sells the building and the new owner
>starts paying taxes.  Just leaving and abandoning the building is in effect
>giving it to the city.

Why do you think someone will buy the property from the city if
the original owner didn't find it profitable to continue owning
it ?

Over 100,000 apartments in New York City have been abandoned this
way.

Mark
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: Racism in America (Re: Ed babbles again)
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 21:13:54 GMT

gpriores@oracle.com (gordon prioreschi) writes:
>Hmm. It was recently observed (I forget by whom) that when
>conservatives see Willie Horton they see a criminal, but when liberals
>see Willie Horton they see a black. Which is the racist attitude? The
>one that judges the man by his criminal record, or the one that judges
>him by his color?

As I recently remarked in another newsgroup, racists are everywhere.
Regardless of your politics, where criminality and race are considered
together, there are racists enough in the world to allow for each
factor to be believed to imply the other.

Conversely, given the propensity in most jurisdictions to convict
blacks more often than whites, perhaps it is the system that judged
Horton a criminal, that a liberal judges when he sees one more black
convict.
-- 
Stevens R. Miller, J.D.		E-mail to srm@mw.sbi.com
From: edwardk@cup.portal.com (edward chungfan kwok)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hornbooks
Date: Wed,  9 Sep 92 19:21:38 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: usa
  <65530@cup.portal.com> <BuBDGJ.ILA@world.std.com>
  <1992Sep10.004519.10234@eff.org>

Don't forget "Criminal Law" by Lafave and Israel and "American Constitutional

Law" by Lawrence Tribe.
Newsgroups: misc.legal