From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Store bought brew
Date: 29 Aug 92 00:51:41 EST
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Aug28.193242.4942@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
> [pissing contest moving to alt.flame]

Wrong, what you start here gets finished here.

> 
> In article <1992Aug27.000407.9721@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Aug26.200422.27773@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>> DC should reread the quoted text.  WD-40 isn't outlawed.  Doing certain
>>> things with WD-40 is.  One of those things is carrying it as a weapon
>>> for use against people, even if the use is otherwise legally justifiable.
>>
>>More lies Andy. I expected better from you. There is no statute which fits
>>here.
> 
> Yet, everyone who's looked has found it.  One of them appears to have
> even checked some of the case law.

Someone just posted he didn't have the resources to find it. Some people do not
have the CA statutes within a few hundred miles of where they live. 

I do hope you will OCR rthe statute and mail it to them, since you refuse to
post it.

As for Tim having checked out the case law--no way. He might have the time to
hop on here for quick debate, but he will not go digging through case law and
annotations until he has to--unless his upcoming article is on that very law,
he doesn't have time to do such trivial research.


> 
>>>>I'd be willing to bet money that most women would rather risk being
>>>>convicted of that than allowing a rapist to finish his plans.
>>> 
>>> So?
>>
>>Go pull a clue from the clue bag if you need to ask that question. 
> 
> DC wants so much to be right about something that he introduces
> irrelevancies and whines when I won't oblige him....

Oh? The master on irrelevances speaks (It doesn't work if you don't get it in
their eyes, so if they are wearing goggles WD-40 will not work therefore it is
not a sgood as mace). 

Well, maybe you think what I post is sometimes irrelevant, but unlike your
posts, it is rarely, if ever, wrong.


> 
>>>>> Since justifiable use while carrying without a permit is justifiable
>>>>> use while carrying without a permit, yes, I do equate the two.  The
>>>>> fact that there may not be a permit for carrying WD-40 as a weapon
>>>>> doesn't change that.
>>>>
>>>>Yes it does. It changes it HIGHLY.
>>> 
>>> Really?  "Your honor, there's no permit that would let me do this, so
>>> let me off" works?  Where?
>>
>>Your prior two sentences do not equal this most recent post. Which one are you
>>now claiming is your real intent?
> 
> There's no change.  Before DC takes that "how to use an index" class, maybe
> he should take a class in reading comphrension.

Sentence (cluster) number one claims it is possible to claim "justifiable use
while carrying without a permit" and the lack of a permit does not does not
change that ("that" being 'justifiable use without a permit'). Remeber, if it
is justifiable, you are let off of the hook--which is what I have been saying
and you have been arguing against. I tried pointing out that you were switching
gears when you wrote it. 

Sentence (cluster) number two seems to be alluding to the fact that if no
permit exists possible, then one is justified in carrying the item. 

Sentence cluster number one makes use justified regardles of whether or not a
permit is held.  Second cluster number two implies that if no permit is
possible, you don't automatically get off of the hook.

You have been making two different claims. Don't get pissed at me if you don't
know how to get your story straight.


> 
>>> It is easy, but proving DC wrong to DC's satisfaction doesn't interest
>>> me.  People who have bothered to use the information I've provided
>>> know he's wrong; they're my intended audience and I don't care whether
>>> or not he does.  If he wants me to, he's going about that a wrong way.
>>
>>OH! Now I see! You are writing for the benifit of those people who believe
>>you.  These people who you have corresponded with and you all secretly know
>>I am wrong.
> 
> Huh?  I haven't discussed this with anyone, although I have heard from
> people who've found out that I'm right on this and DC is wrong.
> 
> DC doesn't see.  I'm writing for people who are interested enough to
> look up the statute.  They'll know whether or not I'm right on this
> point.  I don't really care whether or not they believe me in the
> future because I always provide enough information to check what I
> say.  They'll check when they're interested and won't when they
> aren't.  That seems reasonable to me; checking always turns up other
> useful stuff for interested people.
>

Yeah, and you know when you commit yourself to a statute, I will trot out the
annotations which the other people don't know how to find, if they even know
what they are, and I will pour a few cases out, IN PUBLIC, that show you wrong.


 
>>Bullshit. There are a few people on here who would LOVE to be able to rub my
>>nose in that fact that I was wrong, even if just once.
> 
> What is DC babbling about?  I've no interest in proving something to a
> walking strawman.

The only thing straw around here is your argument. (Well, O.K., possibly also
your belief in your argument.)

> 
>>You once spent considerable effort in an attempt to do just that.
> 
> When and what?  (Hint: I haven't spent "considerable effort" in
> ANY/ALL of my articles that have had any mention of DC.)

Possibly true. God knows you have never supplied any facts to back up any of
your claims. So, all you are doing is cursory 'heard it at the pub' research. I
guess that doesn't qualify as considerable effort.

DC