HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Keywords: Envy; Resentment
Date: 1 Sep 92 15:54:25 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <19120@smoke.brl.mil>, matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
> In article <1992Aug28.152715.24814@Princeton.EDU> 
> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
# #I also recall the shabby
# #treatment meted out to Mark Ethan Smith and Cheryl Stewart by some self
# #appointed net.gods a few years back.  My take is that Mark was a woman
# #who wanted a male name on the net in order to get some respect for her
# #opinions, and Ms. Stewart happened to express some feminist convictions
# #outside of soc.feminism, . . . [Ed Nilges]
# 
# Cheryl Stewart was posting articles condemning stay-at-home wives
# as "parasites" long before soc.feminism came into existence.

She also used to make statements like, "Men.  Strong and wrong.
All of them."

# 					-- Matt Rosenblatt
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: elil@sco.COM (Eli Liang)
Subject: Looking for hornbook recommendations and canned "macros" for briefs
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 02:13:24 GMT


Do any of you have some nice canned typesetting macros (troff, TeX/LaTeX)
for preparing student (or otherwise) briefs which you wouldn't mind sharing?

Also, I don't want to start an argument over this, but do any of you
have any recommendations on outlines/hornbooks/black-letter series for
first year subjects such as torts, contracts, criminal law, property,
civil procedure?  (I suspect that most of these are almost equally good,
but since I only intend to purchase one for each subject, since this is not
a trivial expense, and since I have have to choose from 5 apparently equally
reputable series, Gilbert's, Emanuel's, West's, Smith's, and Legallines, I
thought I would first look at any recommendations that people might offer
me...)

Thanks in advance.

-eli

+---------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| Eli Liang                             |"Some people feel the rain;         |
| Manager, Operating Systems Development| others just get wet." -Roger Miller|
|                                       +------------------------------------+
| US MAIL: OS Technology Department             EMAIL: ...!uunet!sco!elil    |
|          The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.              elil@sco.COM          |
|          400 Encinal Street, PO Box 1900      FAX:   408-458-0811          |
|          Santa Cruz, CA  95061                TEL:   408-427-7561          |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Liang	--  Operating Systems Engineering Manager

US MAIL: OS Technology Group			EMAIL: ...!uunet!sco!elil
	 The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.		       elil@sco.COM
	 400 Encinal Street			FAX:   408-458-0811
	 P.O. Box 1900				TWX:   910-598-4510 SCO SACZ
	 Santa Cruz, CA  95061			TEL:   408-662-7222 x6226
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld)
Subject: Prohibition
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 14:29:00 GMT


Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Alchohol prohibition in Canada
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Keywords: 
>-- 
>Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
>Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
>prohibition won't work.


Oddly enought, Canada's experience with banning alcohol worked fairly
well; lot's less drinking took place, and, as a result, there was a
lot less spousal and child abuse, and the like.
Not that I was there; not that I favour prohibition; but let's not
confuse our myths needlessly, as Ockham would have said.

And, oh yes, gun control, aside from the occasional shooting spree in
old Montreal, works fairly well for us to.  Works even better for the
Brits, but then they turn to soccer hooliganism, so you can't have it
all.
-- 
Michael Feld                         | E-mail:  <feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Dept. of Philosophy                  | FAX:     (204) 261-0021
University of Manitoba               | Voice:   (204) 474-9136
Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2M8, Canada
From: olga@csiatl.Gwinnett.COM (olga from the volga)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: HP managers read my e-mail
Date: 28 Aug 92 23:22:24 GMT

GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu writes:

> 
>      They also released confidential employee information about me to
>    other workers.  I can document both charges.
> 
>     What should I do?
> 
>     And
> 
>     What CAN I do?


Contact an attorney.

olga@csiatl.gwinnett
YOW!
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16670 alt.politics.correct:5196 rec.arts.movies:26157
From: cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Subject: Re: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,rec.arts.movies
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Date: 29 Aug 92 20:43:47 GMT

Michael L. Kaufman writes
> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
> >However, I feel all Italians on the net should be offended by your use
> >of the Marx Brothers' nicknames, which were given to them by someone
> >making fun of Italians.  
> 
> Huh? Where did you get this idea? According to Harpo (from
> his autobiography) the names were given to them by a
> friend during a card game. Harpo, because he played the
> harp. Groucho becase he caarried his money in a
> grouch-bag. Chico because he chassed the chicks (the 'k'
> was dropped by accident on a program and then left off
> permanently) Gummo because he had a gumshoe way of
> sneaking up on you. Later the brother deicded on Zeppo
> (Zeppo wasasn't in the act at that  time) because there was
> a performing monekey named Zippo.  

Yes, indeed. Could you imagine a more telling condemnation of the racist nature  
of this society ? Not only were immigrants riducled by the White Male Northern  
European Heterosexual Conspiracy as sex-crazed, fashion unconcious , sneaky  
vicious and animal-like sub-humans, but the Imperialist propaganda machine  
actually managed to brain-wash immigrant-americans into doing it to themselves  
! How perfect ! White Male Heterosexual Northern Europeans don't even have to  
get their own hands and tongues dirty for their oppression, but they can  
actually exploit the oppressed into furthering their own oppression. Certainly  
you must recognize this as the extension of the southern plantation system into  
the intellectual sphere.

It is truely fortunate that today there are many people at our universities who  
have finally woken up to these facts and can expose them for the less  
sophisticated among us.

	Carl Edman

Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,rec.arts.movies
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Marx Brothers
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 18:24:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.174516.24763@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Aug29.083509.23522@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil> perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug28.233006.15783@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>>
>>>>Hey Ted!  Who was Julius Marx?  Oh well, White Men Can't Proofread, huh?
>>>>Did ya mean to say Groucho?  Wanna post some C code for my collection?
>>>
>>>Given that Julius was "Groucho," I fail to see the proofreading error.
>>>However, I feel all Italians on the net should be offended by your use
>>>of the Marx Brothers' nicknames, which were given to them by someone
>>>making fun of Italians.  My use of Julius, Arthur/Adolph, Leonard,
>>>Herbert or Milton in reference to the brothers is perfectly acceptable.
>>
>We've learned something not exactly earth-shattering, that Julius was
>Groucho's real name.  
 ^^^^^^^

You did it again.  Racist.

>You'll notice that my question marks left open the
>possibility that Tedster, he of the monster racist video collection 

Name one racist video in my collection, you anti-Italian anti-Jewish bigot.
-- 
             ......................................................
             ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | std disclaimers
             the university of chicago law skool, chicago, illinois
             it's log!  log!  log!  it's big, it's heavy, it's wood
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: ran@cbnews.cb.att.com (Robert A. Neinast)
Subject: Re: Graffiti Ordinance Ex Post Facto
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 12:16:16 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.185106.4511@aero.org>, foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
> My city is working on an ordinance to allow the city to take action of up
> to six months in jail if a person does not remove graffiti, or allow the
> city to remove it. The ordinance is directed at one specific individual.

> She has refused to allow the city to remove graffiti, because of
> problems which arose from the way it was removed at some prior time.

I suspect there's nothing she can do about it.  However, she can
certainly get back at them.

(I'm assuming the graffiti is on a large fence or wall.)  After the
graffiti is cleaned up, she replaces it with

              City Council:
          A Bunch of Dickheads

or similar sentiments.  This is now political speech, is certainly
more offensive (at least if you're the dickhead on the council),
and just as certainly protected.

Probably the best thing to do, though, is for her to try to stop the
whole thing from being so adversarial.  Presumably she really doesn't
want the graffiti, just doesn't like the way it was removed before.
Maybe an understanding can be reached where the council acknowledges
her concerns, and promises to get it cleaned in a manner that
addresses her concerns.  If nothing else, the threat of the above
might at least get them to listen to her.

Regards,
Bob
-- 
                                                                  _
". . . and shun the frumious Bandersnatch."                 Nipetlahuini.
Robert Neinast (ran@cblpo.att.com)
AT&T-Bell Labs
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.flame
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: Knucklehead (was: Re: Freedom of Speech (was: Mister Ed Nilges)
Followup-To: alt.flame
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:14:58 GMT

In article <BtpEqu.LEn@NCoast.ORG> cmort@ncoast.org (Knucklehead) writes:
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Your algorithm works out to:
>> > 
>> > if(!(totalitarian_system)  <--Sillyass bug coded by knucklehead
                                   Chris Morton: unbalanced parentheses
>> >   {
>> >     piss;
>> >     moan;
>> >     whine;
>> >     cry;
>> >    }
>> 
>> That's quite right. Mr Eds algorithm also lacks parentheses and a few other  
>> vital parts. :-)
>
>It is missing a parenthesis.  Oh well, the original is just shoddy spaghetti
>code anyway.... :)

God damn, the triumph of incompetence.  Chris makes a stupid blunder,
noted above, then claims he was representing some characteristic of Ed
Nilges.  Actually, mebbe Chris ain't such a knucklehead after all.
He'll go far as a Microsoft marketing flak.

Nothing could illustrate the need of many posters to the net to transfer
their (justified) feelings of being less than competent to marginalized 
scapegoats.

I'm obliged to you, Knucklehead.
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: ADL Dismayed by Ohio Court Decision Striking Down Hate Crimes Law
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:29:28 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Aug27.155606.9594@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug27.075721.6907@samba.oit.unc.edu> Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen) writes:
>>Here is a press release from the Anti-Defamation League.
>>
>> ADL Dismayed by Ohio Court Decision Striking Down Hate Crimes Law
>>believe as they choose without state interference, but if their
>>bigotry prompts them to engage in criminal conduct, the state should
>>be able to punish that conduct as it sees fit."
>
>This is the key issue.  The Supreme Court's Viktora decision provided a
>counterfactual "right" to Viktora to commit a tort and a crime, implying 
>paradoxically that the guy had a legal right to commit a legal wrong.

BS, Ed.  That wasn't what the Supreme Court decided.  The ADL was against
the Minneapolis hate *speech* statute, by the way.  Their hate crimes
statute merely ups the penalty for committing an existing crime for
bias-related motives.  The Minneapolis statute penalized bias-related
motives whether or not the underlying action was a crime.

>The ADL here points-out correctly that well-drafted laws against bias
>come into play when a tort or a crime has already been committed, and
>enhance the punishment for the tort or crime to the extent that
>bias-related torts and crimes degrade community spirit.  In the absence
>of hate crime laws, Viktora's antics may very well have been treated as
>Halloween high-jinx and would likely have gone without any punishment at
>all.  

I doubt a cross-burning has ever been considered Halloween hi-jinx within
the last twenty years.  Your continued lies on this issue are beginning
to sink you even further below Henry Miller on your own test for freedom
of speech.
-- 
             ......................................................
             ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | std disclaimers
             the university of chicago law skool, chicago, illinois
             it's log!  log!  log!  it's big, it's heavy, it's wood
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:06:10 GMT

	OK, so my editor done me in.  The Gallagher and Shean of the PC 
referred to in the post were Ed N. and Sheheryar.
	Sorry about that, chief.  We now return you to your regularly-scheduled
meanderings.

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: earle@poseur.JPL.NASA.GOV (Greg Earle - Sun JPL on-site Software Support)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Can someone be fired after they've resigned?
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:13:38 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: None

Just curious:

Joe Blow walks into his Personnel office and hands in his resignation.  He
gives a week's notice.

2 days later his boss calls Joe into his office and says, "You're fired!".

Can this happen?  Or is the resignation considered legal and binding (or
whatever terms you wish) and therefore no action can be taken during the
notice period?

[ Please address followup replies directly to me, if possible.  I may not be ]
[ reading misc.legal soon ... ]

Thanks,

	- Greg
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Liberals Defending Censorship (Was Re: Nilges)
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:11:13 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Aug25.150827.11033@midway.uchicago.edu>, hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain) writes:
> In the midst of this debate on free speech, I want to pose a question:  Does 
> free speech exist in the US at all?  And if it is not consistent on all 
> levels then it does not exist.  I will add that it is interesting how many 
> people choose to defend the "racists" right to free speech when:
> 
> 1.  Doctors cannot mention abortion as an alternative to patients.

My doctor can.  Your doctor almost certainly can.  The only doctors
so limited are those working in government-funded clinics.  I cringe
at this law, and it certainly seems constitutionally questionable,
but remember that money comes with strings, and government money
comes with government sized strings (ropes).

> 2.  Corporate Whistleblowers generally lose their jobs after spilling the beans.

Free speech is a protection from the government, not from private
actions, except when they are done "under color of authority."

> 3.  Speech to overthrow the government is punnishable(sp).  
> 
> and so on.

It depends whether it constitutes incitement to riot or not.
(Incitement to riot laws are the government's claim that there
are speakers so effective in their oratory, that otherwise
sane people will suddenly turn riotous, just because of a
speech.  Crazy).

> Why defend speech that spreads a hatred when one can talk about cases like the 
> above? Generally, all actions are pretty well screened in this country 
> before being allowed, and racism should be no different.

In a system where freedom is only partially present, some of us
prefer to work towards 100% free, instead of 0% free, which seems
to be your goal.

> Considering the above, is it worth defending the speech of the racist?  If the
> government is allowed some subjective leeway as to what is free and what is 
> not free speech, then consider this:  Does racist propoganda ultimately
> stop at "speech" or does it have "physical" effects in the short/medium/long
> run?  That should be a concern when deciding on what is "speech" and what is 
> not.  
> 
> Using the above logic, I do not consider racist propoganda to be considered
> as "speech."  Racist propoganda drives some people to physically, 
> economically and emotionally hurt others (I'm also not an Al Sharpton or
> Farakhan fan!).  Should it be punnished accordingly?
> That ofcourse is a different issue.  

I agree completely.  The first person we will stop from speaking in
a subversive manner is you!  Clearly, your hostility to free speech
constitutes a direct threat to the rights of others, and we will
have the government clap you in jail to protect the rest of us! :-)

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.motorcycles
From: mgarber@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Max D Garber)
Subject: ++ADVICE ON POTENTIAL LAWSUIT(on a motorcycle)++
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:03:59 GMT


I recently bought another motorcycle to add to my collection and this is what 
happened:

The day after I bought it, I had to charge the battery each time I tried to 
start it.  My fiance's uncle was there both times and he said that from what he
saw, it had been charged many times before-I agreed.

About a week later, it seemed to be running a little rough, so I buzzed to the 
bike shop and it came out to a $200.00 bill (replace that Regulator-Rectifier).

The day I picked it up from the shop, it died again.  this time they found that
the battery that was in it was the wrong size and it ruined the first Reg-Rec. 
and would do the same again.

I ended up with $250.00 in bills between two batteries and the repair.  The guy
I bought it from told me that he knew of nothing wrong with it.

QUESTION:  Does the battery just happen to go bad the day I buy it, or has it 
been going bad for a period of time and it had to be charged up to run.

I was told that a small claims suit would be best fit for this case.  Do I have
anything on him??  this is how the case would look:

I HAVE:  Repair bills, statements from bike shop stating that the repair was 
due to the wrong size battery in it, statements from uncle that it had been 
charged many times before.

HE HAS:  Himself, his mom and dad saying "IT'S NOT HIS FAULT, HE SOLD IT!!"

I DON'T KNOW...YOU EMAIL ME AND LET ME KNOW YOUR OPINION.

THE HYPEMAN
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech (was: Mister Ed Nilges)
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 23:54:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.175738.356@Princeton.EDU>
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>> Ted Frank writes:

>Well, why CAN'T you start calling your boss names?

He can't call me names because I wouldn't like it, and wouldn't invite
him to my next party if he did.  (Not that I've ever met Ted, or
invited him to parties.)  Is this a restriction on his freedom of
speech?

>  Because he's a white
>guy?

I've called lots of people names.  Probably, most of them were white
guys.  (Many of them were on the net (in email or in newsgroups where
such flaming is appropriate), and I have no idea what color or flavor
they are.)

>  Because he controls your paycheck?

Bingo.

>  If you don't have that right,

He does have that right.  He just has to suffer the consequences (not
being invited to my next party, or whatever his boss decides to do,
depending on which right he chooses to exercise).

>why did Viktora have the right to terrorize a black family (noting in
>passing that the Supreme Court gave Viktora an absurd counterfactual
>"right" to committ a tort and a crime, since the SC acknowledged the
>applicability of non-hate-speech related law)?

I think you have this precisely backwards.  The Supreme Court, by
acknowledging the applicability of non-hate-speech-related law,
provided for the punishment of Viktora for his acts.

>  At issue is the rule
>governing the applicability of free speech to situations including both
>Viktora and your behavior on the job, and it is question begging to
>airily say that free speech does not apply to your relationships with
>Doug but does apply as long as a minority group is being trashed.

Free speech applies in all cases.  The family in question had the
right to act against Viktora, to the extent permitted by law (e.g.
writing nasty editorials for the newspaper), because of his speech.

>>> >But who is to determine what is "good" speech, and what isn't?  You?  Me?
>>> >Jesse Helms?  Better to have a blanket rule that all speech is protected.
>
>But it's perfectly ok with you, isn't it, if the Supreme Court makes
>that decision (as long as they agree with you.)  And it is astonishing
>that the statement above is in the same post as the preceding extract.
>If you have a blanket rule protecting all speech then your calling Doug
>anything you choose is protected.

It's protected against being a violation of the law.  It isn't
protected against hurting Doug's feelings, or against Doug's lawful
retaliation.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: Order of Judgement
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:14:43 GMT

cates@cherokee.unx.sas.com (Claire Cates) writes:

>Now, I have asked my lawyer and he says this is unheard of in a 
>custody case that Order of Judgements are only used in civil cases.

Did your lawyer actually phrase it this way?  I ask because
because custody cases *are* civil cases.
-- 
Stevens R. Miller, J.D.		E-mail to srm@mw.sbi.com
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16841 rec.motorcycles:30000