HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech (was: Mister Ed Nilges)
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:34:40 GMT
Organization: HJF AIDS Research Project, Washington DC

In article <1992Aug26.175738.356@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>> Ted Frank writes:
>>> > 
>>> > Leaving aside the fact that many whistleblowers have brought successful
>>> > suits against employers who've fired them, this does not implicate free
>>> > speech.  I can't start calling my boss names to his face, either.  (Not
>>> > that I would -- Doug's my hero :)
>
>Well, why CAN'T you start calling your boss names?  Because he's a white
>guy?  Because he controls your paycheck?  If you don't have that right,
>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)?

So, you finally admit that Viktora committed *actual crimes* under which
he could be rightfully prosecuted, but you still act as if striking
down the hate-speech statute condones what he did. Just because a
court finds a pickpocket innocent of mugging doesn't mean it's ok to
be a pickpocket.

>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.

The fallacy you are trying to pin on Ted's reasoning is not Begging
the Question, it is Special Pleading. That fallacy does not in fact
apply, because free speech means you cannot be deprived of your rights
because of what you say. Do you always have a right to your job?

>>> > 
>>> >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.)

No, the Supreme Court decided that they weren't going to allow the
courts to decide what is "good" speech and what is not. That's just a
teensy bit different from deciding what is "good" speech.

>And it is astonishing
>that the statement above is in the same post as the preceding extract.

Not so astonishing once your obfuscations are rendered transparent.

>If you have a blanket rule protecting all speech then your calling Doug
>anything you choose is protected.

Only if he has a *right* to his job. That depends on whether you
consider a job a right or a deal between private parties.


-- 
==========================================================================
That which is necessary is never evil. If an evil seems necessary, look
to your context; that's where its root lies.  - Charles Perez
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.motorcycles
From: jackr@thorodin.dazixco.ingr.com (BlackJack)
Subject: Re: ++ADVICE ON POTENTIAL LAWSUIT(on a motorcycle)++
Reply-To: jackr@thorodin.dazixco.ingr.com
Organization: Dazix
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 20:48:18 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.190359.2242@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mgarber@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Max D Garber) writes:
>
>I recently bought another motorcycle to add to my collection and this is what 
>happened:
>
>  (stuff deleted)
>

Well, you know what they say...

    "E PLURIBUS INUASSUM"

...which loosely translated means, "Let the buyer beware."

Take your lumps and learn like the rest of us have. 

Just another lesson brought to you by your friends here in the Universe.

BlackJack
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech (was: Mister Ed Nilges)
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:18:29 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal

As quoted from <2A9D81A2.5310@orion.oac.uci.edu> by cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman):

> Christopher Morton writes
> > As quoted from Ed Nilges:
> > > Of course, none of this will make sense to the libertarian, normally an
> > 
> > Let me expand this to say that none of this will make sense to anyone sane
> > and lucid.  I'll leave it to you to demonstrate that you and your fellow
> > Vyshinsky clones possess those qualities.
> > 
> > > Perhaps this "telepathy" is nothing more than reading comprehension,
> > 
> > You've ruled that one out pretty effectively.
> > 
> > 
> > Your algorithm works out to:
> > 
> > if(!(totalitarian_system)
> >   {
> >     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.... :)

"Mr. Ed" is an interesting appellation, although I prefer Ed Nihilgist....


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: New LSAT scores for old
Date: 25 Aug 92 13:48:06 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Aug24.210626.26478@cco.caltech.edu> manning@cco.caltech.edu (Evan Marshall Manning) writes:
>For what it's worth, I think one of the results of the change is
>that screwing up one question will be less likely to change one's
>score by a point, particularly at the upper fringes.  Now don't you
>feel better?

Except that isn't true at all -- the old scale had 39 points (10-48);
the new one has 71 points (120-180, a way to get the 200-800 scale in
without actually using 200-800).  A look at the original chart will
confirm this: 173 to 180 translates into a 48.

The test is somewhat more difficult, and does a better job of distinguishing
amongst the folks in the top five percentiles.  And you have to admit --
the test does a remarkably good job of predicting how well someone will
do on an LSAT.

Now, it might be the case that one point on the new test makes much
less of a difference, that 173 vs. 174 is much less of a distinction that
47 vs. 48 was (especially with so many people maxing out the old test --
six or seven or so people at Brandeis got perfect scores my senior year
on at least one of their attempts to take the test).  This latter
difference might be much more important between the two tests; Yale
apparentally decided they could only take one Jew from Brandeis, so my
48/3.85 got in, while a fellow student just missed at (46 & 48)/3.91.  

Ted "now all I need is a job where the only thing I have to do is fill
     in ovals, and I'm all set" Frank
-- 
             ......................................................
             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
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16455 alt.politics.correct:5136
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Nilges
Date: 26 Aug 92 21:18:53 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Aug26.134946.951@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.163433.15293@midway.uchicago.edu> hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain) writes:
>>
>
>Well, what if I'm a salesman and my boss fires me because I insulted
>a customer?  Violation of free speech?

If Viktora had his "rights", then the answer to your question is "yes."
Since it is unacceptable to you, you must concede that the Supreme Court
was wrong.

>
>What if I'm a student, and my math teacher flunks me because I insist
>that a triangle has two sides.  Violation of my rights?

If Viktora had his "rights", then the answer to your question is "yes."
Since it is unacceptable to you, you must concede that the Supreme Court
was wrong.

>
>>into this but it is a pretty typically Western media created notion of 
>>the big bad middle east (except Israel of course!  But thats an issue of
>>who actually controls the media!)
>
>It'll be interesting to see whether Ed Nilges condemns this dishonest
>anti-Semitism as strongly as he condemns Walt Disney.

You reasoned from the Arabic-sounding name of Shereryar and his mild
criticism, above, of a media bias that is supported by Palestinian
moderates including Edward Said to the absurd conclusion that Sheheryar
is an anti-Semitic.  As such, YOU are the racist and indeed the
anti-semite, if we use Said's definition of latter-day anti-semitism as
anti-semitism directed at Arabs.  The devil-figure Arab of 1967 and
after has replaced the pre-WWII devil-figure Jew in racist media.

If Sherheryar believes that American media is under Jewish control, I
disagree with him.  If he means instead to say, as I think he does, that
the media is controlled by neocolonialists with an interest in
maintaining a militaristic, theocratic state in what used to be
Palestine, then I agree with him.  And note that there are many Jews in
America and Israel who disagree with the instransigent policy
represented by Likud (and who just elected common sense in the form of
Labor.)

I suggest that discussants in this thread follow the lead of Israel and
inject some sense in the discussion.  The defense of Kuwait and the
abandonment of Bosnia-Herzegovina means that international politics is
under the control of a dollar elite, not the Elders of Zion.
Sherheryar, do you mean to say that Jews set our media's agenda, or an
amoral elite comprised of scum of all persuasions?
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,rec.arts.movies
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 23:30:06 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.223601.13313@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>> In article <1992Aug28.153236.24131@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>> >
>>> >In fact, Shean was Jewish, a pretty close relative of the Marx Brothers
>>> >(that's Julius, not Karl, though Karl was sometimes funnier.)
>
>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.
-- 
             ......................................................
             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: zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mark Gansle)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Nilges
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:13:56 GMT
Reply-To: zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mark Gansle)
Followup-To: misc.legal

hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain) writes:
-->
In article <1992Aug25.151714.11497@midway.uchicago.edu>,
thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Aug25.150827.11033@midway.uchicago.edu>
hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain) writes:

> >2. Corporate Whistleblowers generally lose their jobs after spilling
the beans.
> 
> Leaving aside the fact that many whistleblowers have brought successful
> suits against employers who've fired them, this does not implicate free
> speech.  I can't start calling my boss names to his face, either.  (Not
> that I would -- Doug's my hero :)

What happens after they are fired is pretty much irrelevant.  If 
the application of the first amendment does not protect them from 
losing their jobs, it is inconsistent.  What comes later is not relevant.
And thanks for the last sentence:  Why can't you call your boss names
to his face?  If you're for free speech, that is your right!
<--

What you are forgetting, Sheheryar, is that with rights come certain
responsibilities.  The right do do a thing does not mean "the free,
unrestricted ability to do a thing with impunity, with no regards for
consequences."  But that is apparently the type of rights you want.  You
are absolutely, positively guaranteed to call your boss a dimwitted
butthead, but you must accept responsibility for that action.  You must
accept that he may bring a slander suit against you (you do not have the
right to impugn another's character) and he will most likely fire you
(you certainly don't have a right to that job, you only have the right
to offer your services as an employee, services which an employer may or
may not choose to use).  Application of the first amendment protects
your right to free speech, but be careful that you do not violate
another's rights while utilizing that right.  

You seem to have an imperfect understanding of the rights guaranteed
under the U.S. Constitution.  Be careful that you do not call what you
perceive to be the rights of individuals "rights guaranteed under the
first amendment."  Your complaint that someone who blows the whistle on
their employer should be guaranteed employment at that firm is ludicrous
and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the Constitution.

+-------------------------+-------------------------+
|Cloud-gathering Zeus     |Think globally.          |
|                         |Act locally.             |
|zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu  |Eat my shorts totally.   |
+-------------------------+-------------------------+


Xref: sparky misc.legal:16505 alt.politics.correct:5155 soc.culture.jewish:14928
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Mandtory Testing/Healthcare Professionals
From: S927566@UMSLVMA.UMSL.EDU
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 02:36:51 GMT
Organization: UM ST. LOUIS

I am interested in finding out what, if any, legislation is being developed
to require licensed healthcare professionals to have themselves tested
for HIV.
 
Thanks in Advance
Sandra
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Custody case question
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:28:21 GMT

In article <Btp658.Jr2@world.std.com> srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:
>My professor of Family Law (Ms. Kristian Miccio, a much-honored
>activist and very hard-core feminist) claims that the father has
>an advantage in custody disputes because he usually has the better
>income and, unlike the mother, is not socially assigned the duty of
>staying at home with the kids.  

Furthermore

1) Most judges are male.

2) There's a huge double standard in terms of "appropriate" moral standards
   for the parent.  In Illinois, any mother "living in sin" has lost custody
   when it was challenged, while fathers engaging in cohabitation have
   successfully won custody.  

3) Working women are at a disadvantage in custody, because their incomes
   are often lower because they've taken time off from work, yet, as a
   woman with a career they have no inherent advantage as a parent, given
   that state law prohibits a presumption for the mother.
-- 
             ......................................................
             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: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: Re: Intel RU486 (Was Re: Sexual Consent form #314159)
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 15:25:19 GMT

In article <L6UIYCL@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <1992Aug30.220014.4193@eskimo.celestial.com> wix@eskimo.celestial.com (Dennis Wicks) writes:
>> Huh?  Your glasses dirty?  Monitor screen need cleaning?  RU486 is
>> a _drug_, not a computer chip!  If Intel even attempted to bring
>> suit against a _drug_company_ for using the number 486 in the name    
>> of a drug the judge would no doubt dismiss the case as groundless!
>
>Really? Then explain the crosslicensing between VAX vacuum cleaners and
>DEC, or between Apple Records and Apple Computers? Or the foofaraw between
>Sun and BT over Yellow Pages. British law isn't the same as US law.

You are comparing corporation names in the cases you site, not product
names.

>For that matter, Peugot has registered every number of the form X0X in
>France, which is why the Porsche 911 isn't the Porsche 909. French law
>isn't the same as US law.

That's correct, and no one (other than 
Peugot) will use an x0x name for a car.  BUT that
doesn't stop anyone from offering a new model x0x widget, as long
as that widget is not easily confused with a motor vehicle.

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Rape and Paternity
Date: 25 Aug 92 13:49:15 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <BtIuAn.G28@news.cso.uiuc.edu> slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
>Note, however,
>that if it was the MAN who was raped (this does happen) and the 
>woman rapist becomes pregnant and carries to term, the man is *STILL*
>responsible for child support.  

Examples?
-- 
             ......................................................
             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
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16771 misc.consumers:15882
From: jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.consumers
Subject: Re: Endorsing checks for deposit via ink stamp?
Summary: it's complicated only if you want to protect yourself
Date: 1 Sep 92 03:43:04 GMT
Organization: Jeff's House of Electronic Parts

>>Interesting. I have yet to make a mark of any kind on the back of any
>>of the checks that I receive for my consulting work. For the past
>>twenty years or so, I have simply deposited the checks without stamping
>>or signing.

That's fine if your check is never lost nor misplaced.
The reason to place a limited endorsement on a check is so that
if it's lost, stolen or misplaced nobody else can cash it.
When mailing deposits, it's best to endorse the check with your signature
mark it "for deposit only" and your account number.

You understand that even with all the audit trails, it's possible
for somebody to steal a check, endorse it in a way that they can
cash it.  It's simple to protect yourself from such fraud.
Just endorse your checks fully.

- Jeffrey Jonas
jeffj@synsys.uucp
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Politically correct C (was: Re: Freedom of Speech (was: Mister Ed Nilges)
Followup-To: alt.flame
Summary: Good-bye, Henry
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:45:28 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.191315.18260@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
>>>  totalitarian_system_following_Nilges'_biases
>>
>>Oops, Henry, apostrophes are not valid in C identifiers (God this is
>>fun.)
>
>  Well, Ed, we've finally found out what you see as fun.  You
>do have a very constricted world view.
>

Ah yes, one must be competent, but not too competent.  Henry, you
confirm my view that the war on political correctness has a latent
content: it is the war of the half-literate and technologically
incapable white males who nonetheless have appointed themselves
custodians of technology on those who would dare question their vision.
Brian Kernighan was the first to challenge the inclusion of untested
programming examples in textbooks and I'd think his vision would
influence the publication of even satirical or commercial examples by
people who claim to know something about programming.

I guess you're a sort of "big picture" man yourself, Henry.  If that's
the case, I must ask you to refrain in future from making yourself
ridiculous by publishing code samples.


     "Through their own words	
      They will be exposed
      They've got a serious case of
      The emperor's new clothes."

                          - Sinead O'Connor


I've retired this discussion to alt.flame, which I don't read.

Good bye, Henry.





Xref: sparky misc.legal:16605 alt.censorship:7223
From: joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:59:54 GMT
Organization: Dept. of CS Ball State University Muncie IN

In article <1992Aug28.152715.24814@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>Sheheryar, a scan of names shows, unfortunately, that the net is
>composed of a preponderance of white, Northern European males.  This
                                ^^^^^

You can look at a name and tell if the bearer is white or black?  I
find that amusing.  No, I find it hilarious.  My last name is Mays,
Ed.  Am I white or black?

>Although the name Nilges is uncommon and some posters may think it's
>Hispanic (a business card printer once mistook my name as Hispanic and
 ^^^^^^^^

I have never seen a name less Hispanic in my life.  I sincerely doubt
that anyone thinks this.  We don't assault your posts because of your
name, Ed.  We assault them because you are consistently illogical.  You
have never once stated a reason for your opposition to the Hate-speech
law which stands up to any logical refutation.  You have consistently
misinterpreted posts you attempt to respond to, displayed a large 
degree of hypocrisy, ignored postings which point to logical fallacies
and inconsistencies in your own postings, and, as a last resort,
called a huge number of people racist.

>printed thousands of cards for "Edwardo Nilges"), I am a white, northern
>European male who's ashamed of the behavior of my tribe.

You've told us this before, Ed.  It's been common knowledge for some
time.  Did you expect it to be a revelation to us?  

>Keep posting.  I welcome hearing from you.

While you are explaining these things to him, explain why it doesn't
concern you that the anti-hate speech law would gag blacks first.  He
should know that you have repeatedly ignored this issue.  I offered
you a real-life situation, in which Ice-T would be gagged by the
police if they could get away with it (particularly in Indy).  You
ignored this point for weeks and then responded, "It doesn't matter
since Time-Warner makes money off of him."  I say it DOES matter
Ed.  It matters that a law which makes it illegal to say things which
frighten others will be used by the in-group (white northern european
males such as yourself) to silence speech by blacks which whites find
frightening.  The only practical solution is to say "Hate-speech is
legal" and then speak out publically and label speech based in racial
hatred for what it is.  Go ahead, Ed.  Call me a racist.  Say it!
Just once!

Joe
 


Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship