HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges)
Subject: Re: Once more into the breach, dear friends (was: Re: Ted babbles again
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:38:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.223836.21720@Princeton.EDU> mgflax@flower.Princeton.EDU (Marshall G. Flax) writes:

[...stuff...] (Have you accomplished your crafts project yet, Marshall?)

Most of what Marshall posts is undeserving of comment.  But I will
address two things.

>>     (1)  Strictly speaking, that was a request, not ridicule.  It did
>>          not hold Marshall's thoughts or feelings up to scorn, but
>>          requested that he perform an unnatural act.
>
>Ed, your sophistry grows tedious.  You lost your temper and your cool.
>It would be more mature if you would just admit it.

Is "sophistry" replying to one who believed that he had the last word?
When you grow weary of your teachers at Princeton, I wonder whether you
have the courage to tell them that "your sophistry grows tedious."
Unlikely; I've attended classes at Princeton as a Continuing Education
student, and I was unnerved by the apathy of your generation and its
failure to engage its teachers in dialogue.

>
>And, as in the question of "what deserves to be censored", it's Ed
>Nilges who gets to decide what's what.  Yeah, right.

Marshall, I have no power beyond my ability to post and I'd like to put
to rest once and for all this criticism, which appears so frequently in
response to posters who have non-mainstream views.  I'll warrant that
when you enter your first job, you won't tell your boss, "who made you
able to say what's what?"  You'll accept his right as a consequence of
his economic power over you.  The inference from the fact that someone
makes a statement to an excess of will to power is invalid.  It is true
that we all share a certain will-to-power; but it is unreasonable to
suppose that a person with decided views for which he is ready to argue
has any MORE will-to-power than the next man.

Of the duo Stalin and Trotsky it was STALIN who was fairly inarticulate,
who did not engage in debate, whereas it was Trotsky who had a minimal
willingness to state positions and give reasons.  Using language
often indicates the reverse of an excess of will-to-power.

And the positions I am arguing for are not Nilgesian and they are
unoriginal.  Feminists are the ones who are trying to demarcate an area
of free speech that is less "speech" than systematic subordination of
women, and blacks are trying to do the same with racially abusive
speech.  These views are underrepresented on the net, which is instead
characterized by an excess of "speech" which is known to experienced
users as disinformation (Carl Kadie's ridiculous assertions re Herb
Marsacosa as a recent example.)  I believe that using my access to bring
these non-Nilgesian views is a public service since it improves dialogue
and may shed light on why the net is so abusive and disinformative.


Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Racism in America
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:31:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep22.144417.21710@Princeton.EDU>
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Sep22.010958.5069@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep19.030411.20212@Princeton.EDU>
>>egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>Reread it until you understand it.  I said (1) that the banks should use
>DIFFERENT tools (never claiming that they should "lend to all comers"),
>and (2) that the current toolkit is ineffective, even from a purely
>business standpoint, RACIAL CONSIDERATIONS APART.

I'm sure that banks would pay a lot of money for a better set of
tools.  (AmEx, for one, spends a lot of money doing research into such
things.)

>>  The only "marketing pressures" I've seen on
>>banks were pressures to lend to members of certains minority groups.
>
>These are counterpressures that result from the fact that if they did
>not exist, banks (using their racist toolkit) would IGNORE minority
>groups.

Evidence?  Banks are in business to make money; if members of some
minority groups are better/worse risks than others, banks would be
more/less willing to lend them money.  Do you feel that members of
some minority groups are generally bad risks?  Which groups?  Are you
racist?

>>Actually, deadbeats of all races will find it hard to buy or rent
>>housing in Aspen or Princeton.
>
>Not so.  The members of the Princeton/Newport Financial Group, deadbeats
>(and theives) to a man, were able to rent, and buy, houses in Princeton.

Thieves often make a lot of money.  The members of the P/NFG weren't
known as deadbeats when they rented and bought those houses.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Fighting Words?
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:53:13 GMT

In article <5fvg02cu24am01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:

>Actually, the fact that Chaplinsky was a Jehovah's Witness really isn't 
>relevant.  I don't know why it keeps being mentioned in casebooks describing 
>the case.

Probably because the Jehovah's Witnesses were involved in several
important First Amendment cases in that period. See, e.g., West Virginia
v. Barnette.

Perhaps the church funded Chaplinsky's appeal.


--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: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fighting Words?
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:29:46 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <gsm1RB1w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM>, rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM 
(Richard Carlson) writes:
> Were the "fighting words" the ones which were addressed to
> specific individuals, like that policeman?  Does "one-on-one" mean
> face-to-face _and_ specifically addressed?

You might want to read the case directly: Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 US 
568 (1942).
 
> If he called the members of the city government fascists (or dumb
> motherf*ckers, or crackpots, or effete snobs, or closet queens, or
> uppity [racial slur]s, or whatever), can these words constitute
> fighting words for someone who is not h/erself a member of the
> city government or related to a member of the city government?

Can't tell how the 1942 would have ruled on that one; they didn't get the 
question. 
 
> What were the actual "fighting words" Chaplinsky was charged with
> uttering?

Again, I've posted it as best I can recall:

 + Chaplinsky called a policeman a "damned fascist", and said that the city
 + government was composed of all fascists and racketeers.  This is from
 + memory, so these may not be exact quotes, but that's the gist of it.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
From: rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fightin' Words
Date: 28 Sep 92 13:02:04 GMT

mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

> In article <smwRRB1w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richa
> 
> >Well, the e-mail route to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
> >works.  (I don't have ftp capabilities.)  I got a nice little text
> >on Fighting Words -- cohen-v-california.1, which looks to be the
> >text of the court's decision but also contains some quotations
> >from books on the subject.
> 
> It should be noted that the case that articulated the "fighting words"
> doctrine is not Cohen v. California (the "Fuck the Draft" case), but
> Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.

> Rather than ask a list of questions, why not go to some sources on
> freedom-of-speech jurisprudence? I recommend NIMMER ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH,
> by Melville Nimmer.


OK.  But it'll probably be a few days until I can get to the Emory
law library.  And is that the book I want?  It sounds as if it
approaches it from the first amendment point of view -- how
protected is the speech of the person uttering the fighting words.
I'm more interested in fighting words as a _defense_ against
damages in empowerment-type  civil suits (where you sue me for
medical and dental bills when I punch you after you called me a
"dumb m*therf*cker) and as a mitigating factor in my felony
battery prosecution when I tell the judge, "I hit the b*astard
because he called me a 'dumb m*therf*cker.'  He don't have the
right to call me that and me just stand there and take that sh*t
off of him!"

But you agree with the lawyer who told me that that's now all
moot.

> >Suppose I call you a "dumb m*ther-f*cker."  What crime have I
> >committed?
> 
> None.
> 
> >  What latitude do you have in hitting me?
> 
> None. 
> 
> >(I recently
> >talked to an attorney here in Georgia who says that both mutual
> >combat and non-ethnic fighting words have just about been thrown
> >out of the court system and if you hit me after I've said fighting
> >words the case will _not_ now be dismissed but will go on and be
> >decided by a judge and you will probably be found guilty of
> >battery.)
> 
> Right.
> 
> >Suppose I call you a [ethnic epithet].  Leaving aside specific laws
> >like the ones at issue in that cross-burning case, what crime have
> >I committed?
> 
> None.


If this is all true isn't it a new doctrine?  Haven't fighting
words until recently been a mitigating factor, almost amounting to
a license for me to hit you if I can get you mad enough to call me
something society agrees is offensive?

Btw, didn't we discuss this issue on RIME or FidoNet?  Your name is
familiar.  I went over these issues on those networks about a year
or so ago, but I never got it ironed out.  I never understood what
the law actually was.

--
Richard Carlson
Internet:              rc@depsych.gwinnett.COM
Bangpath:              {rutgers,ogicse,gatech}!emory!gwinnett!depsych!rc
CompuServe:            76605,470
Voice:                 (404) 881-6877
Xref: sparky misc.legal:17723 alt.society.civil-liberty:6050 talk.politics.drugs:6473
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: History of forfeiture laws
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 13:27:22 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>According to a letter I received from Terry Bruce, my U.S. Representative:
>
>"Congress and state legislatures have authorized the use of forfeiture
>as a law enforcement mechanism for almost two hundred years.
>Traditionally, the crimes that triggered forfeiture have been those
>which threatened the government's revenue interested such as smuggling
>or tax evasion or crime which has a preceived threat to the public
>health."
>
>Is this true, false, relevant to War-on-Drugs forfeitures?
>
>- Carl
>--
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

More relevant than a lot of people imagine.  We are now "enjoying" the
consequences of nearly 100 years of big-government agitation by the
Progressive Movement.  Start from the premise that people are "entitled"
to the earnings of others, to be redistributed through taxation, and you
have NO CHOICE but to treat making a living as a victimless crime, to
be punished by fines of 47%.  (Federal, state, and local tax revenues
now come out to 47% of GNP.)

Now that the precedents have long ago been set in the WoSD ("War on Social
Darwinism"), the same usurpations of human rights (which, lo and behold,
do include property rights after all) are merely being extended to the
other WoSD.

What goes around, comes around.


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.sig  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Xref: sparky misc.legal:17820 alt.censorship:7708 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2908 alt.politics.correct:5540
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: "Multiculturalism and the First Amendment"
Date: 29 Sep 92 03:57:07 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.

In article <1a7at1INNlh1@eagle.natinst.com> chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz) writes:
>
>I would encourage you to put all your spelling mistakes near the
>beginning of your post.  This way Ed will go into a diatribe about
>your spelling and people will hit 'n' before wasting their time
>reading his posts.

Or they can do one better and place something like

/egnilges/a:j

into their kill file.  This will automatically junk any article with "egnilges"
*anywhere* in the article...


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: ted@cs.brown.edu (Tony Davis)
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification -- The Power is a Right
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:11:52 GMT

| >> = Mike Godwin
| >>The jury claims a moral right to nullify? I've never known a juror to make
| >>any such claim. It seems certain that in the great majority of instances
| >>of nullification, the jury did not think of its "moral right" to nullify
| >>at all. It simply acquitted someone it felt deserved acquittal, regardless
| >>of what the facts and law seemed to dictate.

| > = Al Date
| >...deserved acquittal on what grounds if not moral grounds??

|   = Mike Godwin
| I said nothing about moral grounds.

Obviously some people think you did.  Tell us what you really said so that
we can all play the same game.


| Just to be clear on what I'm saying, let me repeat again what you seem to
| be disputing:
| 
| >In article <1992Sep23.224920.10978@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike
| Godwin) writes:
| >>
| >>The jury claims a moral right to nullify? I've never known a juror to make
| >>any such claim. It seems certain that in the great majority of instances
| >>of nullification, the jury did not think of its "moral right" to nullify
| >>at all. It simply acquitted someone it felt deserved acquittal, regardless
| >>of what the facts and law seemed to dictate.
| 
| This is not exclusive of "moral grounds."
| 
| What I was saying here was that I don't think the jury claims a "moral
| right to nullify." Again, I've never heard a juror refer to any such
| thing.

What is your distinction between 'claims a moral right to nullify' and
'having moral grounds for nullifying'?


Tony Davis
ted@cs.brown.edu

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification -- The Power is a Right
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:17:42 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.185939.21772@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
>In article <1992Sep23.224920.10978@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>
>>The jury claims a moral right to nullify? I've never known a juror to make
>>any such claim. It seems certain that in the great majority of instances
>>of nullification, the jury did not think of its "moral right" to nullify
>>at all. It simply acquitted someone it felt deserved acquittal, regardless
>>of what the facts and law seemed to dictate.
>
>...deserved acquittal on what grounds if not moral grounds??

I said nothing about moral grounds.

>You make it sound like a nullifying jury off-handedly decides to ignore
>the law given to it by the judge and acquit someone.

Do I? I think it's rare that a jury "off-handedly" does anything.

>  In fact, 
>nullification is usually accompanied by a moral conviction or
>revelation that it would be
>more unjust to uphold the law and to convict, than to nullify and acquit.

I do not think you can support this statement.
 
>Nullifying juries are usually, if not unanimously driven by conscience.

What is your source for this statistic?

>This was the true in all the famous cases of nullification, and it was
>the case in the recent trial in Redwood City, CA of needle-exchange
>activists.  

How can you speak of the mental states of the jurors in "all the famous
cases of nullification"?

Just to be clear on what I'm saying, let me repeat again what you seem to
be disputing:

>In article <1992Sep23.224920.10978@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike
Godwin) writes:
>>
>>The jury claims a moral right to nullify? I've never known a juror to make
>>any such claim. It seems certain that in the great majority of instances
>>of nullification, the jury did not think of its "moral right" to nullify
>>at all. It simply acquitted someone it felt deserved acquittal, regardless
>>of what the facts and law seemed to dictate.

This is not exclusive of "moral grounds."

What I was saying here was that I don't think the jury claims a "moral
right to nullify." Again, I've never heard a juror refer to any such
thing.


--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: ca566@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael Holloway)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Warranty law: When are extra fees OK?
Date: 26 Sep 1992 22:30:20 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ca566@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael Holloway)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Are there any lawyers out there that can answer questions about commercial
law?

If a warranty makes no mention
of service fees or necessary additional purchases are there any
circumstances under which it could be called reasonable and customary for a
seller to charge a fee for honoring the warranty?  

If the seller thought
that they had to do some analysis of something the buyer was using in
conjunction with the seller's product, say simple analysis of the buyer's home
electrical wiring, could the seller charge a fee for this if it was not
mentioned in any warranty or contract?

If, in fact, there is no rule of law that lets a seller charge a fee
whenever they like, could charging a fee be called fraud?

I really could use some help here.  Any responses are greatly appreciated. 
If you have references that would be fantastic.

Thanks

-- 
E-mail: mhollowa@ccmail.sunysb.edu (mail to freenet is forwarded)
phone:  (516)444-3612
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.arts.books
From: ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar)
Subject: Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net
Keywords: Equality, Fairness, Same Standards?
Reply-To: ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 04:06:41 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.072416.19305@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.034703.29223@news.columbia.edu> ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar) writes:
>>
>>Mike your argument is valid, but how can we place a %age content figure

DELETED

>Face it: the Islamic world has some catching up to do.
>

THAT is exactly the kind of attitude that we are discussing.  Your branding
the entire spectrum of the Islamic world based upon the decision of the
Iranians.  

Face it: the Western world has some catching up to do about understanding Islam

Regards

Imran


Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain)
Subject: RSA claims 33 and 37 of U.S. patent 4,405,829
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:28:22 GMT


The patent contains as claim 33:

	In a communication system an encoding means for transforming a
	transmit message word signal M to a ciphertext word signal C
	where M corresponds to a number representative of a message and

		0 <= M <= n-1

	where n is a composite number and where C corresponds to a number
	representative of an enciphered form of said message and corresponds
	to

		C = a[e]*M^e + a[e-1]*M^(e-1) + ... a[0](mod n)

	where e and a[e], a[e-1], ... a[0] are numbers.

Claim 37 is nearly identical except that cryptographic use is specifically
claimed.

Thus it appears that any cryptographic method using a polynomial modulo
a composite infringes.  I am seeking opinions, particularly from any
legal experts that may read this as to whether this claim which essentially
claims the use of a single mathematical formula is defensable?

Further I would like to know if anyone is aware of any prior art (filing
was Dec. 14, 1977) using a polynomial as simple as C = M^2(mod n) even that 
would invalidate this claim.

Thanks,

Bob
-- 
Bob Cain    rcain@netcom.com   408-358-2007

                ____________________________________________
               \                                           /
                \ Flames to /dev/null    Advice by email! /
                 \                                       /
                  \ PGP public key available on request /
                   \                                   /
                    -----------------------------------
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,soc.college
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: the MIT anti-trust case
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:05:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.150012.6455@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
>The antitrust laws were devised to enable TRADE to flourish and as such
>applying them to universities means you think universities are engaged
>in trade.  They're not.  

Universities aren't engaged in trade ???  Unless I am mistaken, most
universities allow people to exchange money (aka tuition) for 
services (aka education).  That sounds like TRADE to me.  In fact,
I don't know how else you could describe what they do. 


Guido