HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kimmyd@bnr.ca (Kimmy Posey P920)
Subject: Re: DC and evidence
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, BNR-RTP 
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1992 12:37:07 GMT

|> (Actually, I haven't seen DC post at all since we gave him that statute...
|>  wonder why?  :-)

Maybe he choked on it and we can all go back to discussing what this forum is
about (or should be IMO): Rape.  Ways to prevent it.  Ways to support victims
in their quest for healing, etc.  Maybe now we can stop wasting bandwidth on
this quy and get on with it.  But lets assume he's still out there.  He's
just chewing on your statute, gettin' ready to spit it back at you like he
always does.  We could achieve the same result by just IGNORING him!  Let's
just put the ol' kill file zap on 'im and warn newcomers to do the same.  Sort
of a user-moderated thing.  I would have put him in my kill file long ago but
then there wouldn't be anything to read in this group!  Think about it.  You've
got nothin' to lose but a peptic ulser and a genuine pain in the butt!

KimmyD
of a user- moderated thing.
From: bae@Auspex.COM (Brian Ehrmantraut)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Store bought brew
Date: 29 Aug 92 00:43:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.102352.9731@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
> In article <14324@auspex-gw.auspex.com>, bae@Auspex.COM (Brian Ehrmantraut) writes:
> > 	Well, DC, while you are blathering about things legal, why don't you 
> > give us your assessment of the civil exposure due to (mis)using WD-40 as a 
> > defensive weapon?
> 
> Same as any other device. Use a crowbar, knife, fist, WD-40 or mace for
> self-defense when you should not have, and you open yourself up to liability. 

	Ah - but WD-40 is not really the same as mace, now is it?  
	
	Most legitimate mace users in this state must attend training classes 
on the appropriate use of this sort of force.  Mace legal for carry is 
certified by the state as being appropriate for use.  One of the alleged 
benefits of mace is that it causes no lasting harm.  All of this gives you 
some amount of liability insulation.

	One of your claims for WD-40 is that it is quite harmful.  This puts
it in a different category of force, closer to a knife or crowbar than to mace.

	All of this would seem to make the use of mace and the use of WD-40 
quite different, from a liability exposure point of view...  

	(This also indicates that WD-40 is not an acceptable "substitute" for 
mace.  While you are searching through CA case law on this stuff, if you are
able, you might come across one fellow who was *not* charged under the tear gas
statutes for his use of a "better" substance - that's because they charged him
with murder instead, as the sprayee died...)

-- 
		Brian A. Ehrmantraut

BELL:   voice:(408) 492-0900  fax: (408) 492-0909  
USnail:	Auspex Systems, 2952 Bunker Hill Lane, Santa Clara, CA 95054
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Self-Defense in the Home
Date: 26 Aug 92 11:37:49 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Aug26.072834.13693@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, gprall@nyx.cs.du.edu (Gene Prall) writes:
> 	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
> 	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
> Sender: usenet@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (netnews admin account)
> Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
> References: <1992Aug18.015742.24311@news.acns.nwu.edu> <1992Aug18.005905.9535@uoft02.utoledo.edu> <1992Aug26.044848.15372@midway.uchicago.edu>
> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 07:28:34 GMT
> Lines: 18
> 
> In article <1992Aug26.044848.15372@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Aug18.005905.9535@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
> (stuff about the burgalry deleted..)
> 
>>>Surprise! Trick question! BOTH are valid, depending upon the rule of law of the
>>>state you live in.
>>
>>Can you tell us which state it is that does not permit the use of
>>deadly force to prevent the commission of a felony in your own home?
>>-- 
> I know here in Georgia, If a man is burglarizing your home and he is within
> your 4 walls of your home you have every legal right to fill him full of lead
> 
> But stupidly, you cannnot shoot them outside of your house if they are breaking
> in or climbing out...
> 
> Gene
> 

Well, wait until he is in and then blast. The reason why they do not permit you
to shoot before he is in is because in the landmark cases, the homeowner shot a
cop who was investigating what was reported as a burglary. All the cop did was
try to turn the back doorknob. The shotgun blast made him dead at the scene.

Further, one should not use statements like 'a felony'. If someone is
counterfitting, or smoking pot, you can not shoot them for that. 

I would say however, that GA has a reasonably well balanced law.

DC
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Theoretical book
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:59:28 GMT
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.


   Just to start a new thread that doesn't revolve around DC and friends...

  How would you react if you saw this book in a store:

     Rape: How to commit it, and how to enjoy it

  And it really seemed to be a manual for committing rape. The table of
contents went something like this:

Chapter1: Victim selection
Chapter2: 101 rape scenarios you can use
Chapter3: Defending against counterattack
Chapter4: Get the most enjoyment out of violence
Chapter5: How to avoid detection and arrest
Chapter6: Getting caught, getting off
Chapter7: Humiliating and scarring your victim for life
Chapter8: Group activities and other advanced techniques

   What would be your reaction? Would you read it? Would you try to ban it?

DanZ

-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Ataylor lies--repeats and new ones! Bring the kids!
Date: 28 Aug 92 11:55:48 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Aug27.232934.2580@u.washington.edu>, gwangung@byron.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang) writes:
> In article <1992Aug27.012734.9724@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>In article <ATAYLOR.92Aug26151459@gauss.nmsu.edu>, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>>God, you PERSIST in trying to make this into something it is not. Again and
>>again.
> 
> 	If he is, then he's got plenty of company.
> 
> 	That MIGHT say something: human communication is nowhere near as
> precise as you're trying to make it. I think more than one casual observer
> would agree with Ataylor.
> 
> 	Given that there is no such thing as perfect communication, I think
> it'd appear more impressive to admit to making an imperfect message and
> proceed to refine the idea rather than to insist the receiver is an idiot
> for not getting precisely what you meant.
> 
> 	'Course, then we wouldn't have this stimulating flow along
> the net.bandwidth here....
> 

Oh, I can agree with what you are saying. Perfect communication just ain't
gonna happen. But these people will intentionally mis-quote, edit quotes to
leave out material that contradicts what they are saying, and then even after
it is explained to them, are too childish to admit "Oh, guess I misunderstood."

Ataylor has repeatedly refused, under incredibly heavy proof that his
interpretations were wrong, to do anything other than say, "I think you said
something different!"

You would think this person thinks admitting an error is like confessing to a
murder. So, the debate goes on.

And then I get blamed for being hostile.

Go figure.

DC

> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 	"I got into theatre originally to pick up girls. Unfortunately, all I
> found were women..."

PS. Have you gotten any hate mail from feminists over your sig line?


Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: gwangung@byron.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang)
Subject: Re: Ataylor lies--repeats and new ones! Bring the kids!
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 23:29:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.012734.9724@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>In article <ATAYLOR.92Aug26151459@gauss.nmsu.edu>, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>God, you PERSIST in trying to make this into something it is not. Again and
>again.

	If he is, then he's got plenty of company.

	That MIGHT say something: human communication is nowhere near as
precise as you're trying to make it. I think more than one casual observer
would agree with Ataylor.

	Given that there is no such thing as perfect communication, I think
it'd appear more impressive to admit to making an imperfect message and
proceed to refine the idea rather than to insist the receiver is an idiot
for not getting precisely what you meant.

	'Course, then we wouldn't have this stimulating flow along
the net.bandwidth here....




-- 
	"I got into theatre originally to pick up girls. Unfortunately, all I
found were women..."
e-mail:  gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu
From: bae@Auspex.COM (Brian Ehrmantraut)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Ataylor obsession with trying to win (just) one.
Date: 1 Sep 92 00:46:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.021245.9764@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:

> At no time did I say WD-40 is something a woman SHOULD carry. I said it was
> something a woman might or could carry as an alternative so she could avoid
> prosecution.

	It's not much of an alternative if:

		a) it doesn't work
		b) it doesn't avoid prosecution...

	When are you going to start in telling us about how to use rolled up
newspapers or red spray paint?


        As an aside, I encourage all of you, when making important decisions 
about matters of personal defensive strategy, not to rely on hear-say evidence 
from the net, particularly when it is offered by such obviously completely
unqualified, uninformed, and inexperienced individuals.  I encourage you rather
to investigate the matter by contacting professionals in the security field -
your life is too important to bet on anybody's net postings. (Mine included!)
 
        And for those of you out there offering well-meaning but
non-reality-based advice on threat management and personal defense, please
at least take some time to check out the facts before posting - it is
completely irresponsible of you to propagate misinformation on this subject,
as you may get someone killed (or in DC's case, sent up the river)...

-- 
		Brian A. Ehrmantraut

BELL:   voice:(408) 492-0900  fax: (408) 492-0909  
USnail:	Auspex Systems, 2952 Bunker Hill Lane, Santa Clara, CA 95054  
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: CosgroveConfusion (Was: Store bought brew)
Followup-To: alt.stupidity
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Aug27.144712.9735@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 23:27:28 GMT

<In article <1992Aug27.144712.9735@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
<   In article <1992Aug27.143052.25877@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
<   > In article <1992Aug27.000407.9721@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
<   >  writes:
<   >>In article <1992Aug26.200422.27773@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanfo
<   > rd.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
 
	Note: the legal side of this thread has been commented on
	by thf2, andy and rolfe...not me.

Cosgrove rants:

<As for finding the staute, I know where to find it. It would take me about as
<little time as it took you (Actually, less if I use Lexis. After all, "noxious
<or poison or caustic w/12 weapon or defense or assault" does not take that long
<to type). I am just waiting for Ataylor to commit himself to a specific 
<section of code so I can bring out the annotation and case law cases that 
<nullify what he is saying. 

	Cosgrove, you are arguing with Andy on this issue, not me.

	If Cosgrove cannot easily differentiate between *people* on 
	such a trivial issue, why should anyone believe he
	can tell one *statute* from another?

<I want to humiliate you two. 

	Note Cosgrove's obsession with public humiliation.
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Store bought brew
Date: 28 Aug 92 11:49:19 EST
Distribution: alt.flame
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Aug27.224500.18911@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
> In article <1992Aug27.101540.9730@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>In article <14322@auspex-gw.auspex.com>, bae@Auspex.COM (Brian Ehrmantraut) writes:
>>> 	Wrong.  I found it easily.  Surely you can as well...
>>
>>IF an applicable one existed--surely I could. But Ataylor is no expert and he
>>may have found some law against using poison in your garden for all we know.
> 
> Huh?  Did Ataylor find it too?  (No, that's not the law we're talking
> about.)

Yes it is!

> 
>>I do not believe there is a law which prohibits a woman from using a can of
>>WD-40 for self-defense if she is being raped.
> 
> Bully for DC.  However, that's not what we're talking about.  We're
> talking about a law that prohibits her from carrying it for that
> purpose.  Remember, justifiable use doesn't imply justifiable carry
> for that use; this is an example of that.  There are others.

Jesus, this old "I don't want to provide a basis for my claim" argument.
You are citing a maxim which does not exist in the real world.

> 
>>Ataylor has dug through old posts, archived them, edited them, posted
>>and reposted them, and then claims he doesn't care what I say.
> 
> Did Ataylor?  Perhaps DC should take that up with him.  (It would be
> reasonable to archive my postings so that I can rebut DC's
> misrepresentations, but that's a different horse.  If I wanted to
> comment on DC's reign of error, there's always fresh evidence.)
> Methinks that DC is confusing his demons.

Well, my reign of errors has yet to have a single entry added to it. (Except
for one post about a month ago where someone asked about rehtorical questions,
and I thought he was stating one.)

Aside from that, every time you or ataylor (and, I fail to see a difference as
you BOTH use the tactic of falsifying the past posts and intetntionally
misquoting) dredge up something to confront me with, it has, without exception,
been wrong. One-hundred percent of the time.

But you keep shouting a lot.

Reminds me of an old adage about being a lawyer:

1. If the law is on your side, argue the law.
2. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts.
3. If neither the law or the facts are on your side, argue real loud!

Don't you wish you could try #1 or #2, instead of being stuck in #3?

DC
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Ataylor gets something right! Throw a party!
Date: 29 Aug 92 02:19:18 EST
Followup-To: alt.stupidity
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <ATAYLOR.92Aug28162728@gauss.nmsu.edu>, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
> 	<1992Aug27.144712.9735@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
> Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 23:27:28 GMT
> Lines: 28
> 
> <In article <1992Aug27.144712.9735@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
> <   In article <1992Aug27.143052.25877@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> <   > In article <1992Aug27.000407.9721@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
> <   >  writes:
> <   >>In article <1992Aug26.200422.27773@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanfo
> <   > rd.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>  
> 	Note: the legal side of this thread has been commented on
> 	by thf2, andy and rolfe...not me.
> 
> Cosgrove rants:
> 
> <As for finding the staute, I know where to find it. It would take me about as
> <little time as it took you (Actually, less if I use Lexis. After all, "noxious
> <or poison or caustic w/12 weapon or defense or assault" does not take that long
> <to type). I am just waiting for Ataylor to commit himself to a specific 
> <section of code so I can bring out the annotation and case law cases that 
> <nullify what he is saying. 
> 
> 	Cosgrove, you are arguing with Andy on this issue, not me.
> 
> 	If Cosgrove cannot easily differentiate between *people* on 
> 	such a trivial issue, why should anyone believe he
> 	can tell one *statute* from another?
> 

OK, I made a typo. Sorry to have maligned your reputation. 

> <I want to humiliate you two. 
> 
> 	Note Cosgrove's obsession with public humiliation.

Absolutely. But you will note that the fact I enjoy doing it does not nullify
the fact that I do it.

DC
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: English Lesson For D. Consgrove
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:19:28 GMT
Distribution: talk
Organization: NMSU Computer Science


	Please examine the following sentences.

	"Mr. X did a stupid thing; his wallet was stolen".

	"Mr. X is stupid; his wallet was stolen".

	Can you see any difference, any difference at all between
	the two sentences?

	If you cannot, please seriously consider not posting to
	this group until you learn how to differentiate between
	judging people's *actions* versus judging *them*....


=====================================================================
Going to a frat party alone and getting plowed while wearing sexy 
clothing virtually assures you will have sex with at least one of 
the brothers. 
	
			-----D. M. Cosgrove, providing an
			example of how NOT to post to talk.rape
======================================================================
From: bae@Auspex.COM (Brian Ehrmantraut)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Store bought brew
Date: 27 Aug 92 07:35:52 GMT
Originator: news@auspex-gw.Auspex.COM

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:
> > Other people have found the statute; they were interested in it and
> > the lack of a statute number was no obstacle to them.  DC either isn't
> > interested enough to look in the index or has some other problem.
> > Either way, that's his problem.  Pay me and I might care, but I don't
> > now.
> 
> More lies Andy. I expected better from you. There is no statute which fits
> here.

	Wrong.  I found it easily.  Surely you can as well...

> Liars usually don't. (At least that is what they claim. But for someone who
> does not care what I say, you DO spend a lot of time giving rebuttal. 'Me
> thinks he doth protest too much.'

	I think you may be onto something here...  

-- 
		Brian A. Ehrmantraut

BELL:   voice:(408) 492-0900  fax: (408) 492-0909  
USnail:	Auspex Systems, 2952 Bunker Hill Lane, Santa Clara, CA 95054
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Store bought brew
Date: 27 Aug 92 10:07:14 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <14323@auspex-gw.auspex.com>, bae@Auspex.COM (Brian Ehrmantraut) writes:
> In article <1992Aug23.194538.9655@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>> In article <1992Aug22.215948.18120@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>> > Does Goetz ring any bells?
>> 
>> Yes, he was carrying a loaded gun in a subway. He walked over to his already
>> shot panhandlers, and while one of them was bleeding on the ground, he said,
>> "You don't look like you are hurt bad enough." and fired some more slugs into
>> his back.
>> 
>> Jury acquited him at least once, didn't they? Second time he got, what kind of
>> penalty was it? For pumping lead into a defenseless human?
> 
> 	NOT.

Bingo BE! The penalty they wanted to get him on was attempted homocide--if you
read the accounts as it was happening.

His penalty for shooting at helpless people was posession without permit, as
that was ALL they could convict him on.

Now, I realize people like you, with such an obviously limited scope of the
language might miss out on the sarcasm of what I said. Sorry to have not
spelled it out in subject/verb/object pattern so you could understand it.
However, I don't see why all posts should be reduced to the fourth grade level
just so you can understand them and not be confused.

Jeses, so far you are the ONLY person to have missed out on the sarcasm.

> 
> 	You know, DC, it is quite evident that you are not even remotely 
> familiar with the facts of the Goetz cases, and are just making this stuff up 
> as you go along, basing your "analysis" on popular media accounts.

How is it evident? Evident to someone like you who is unfamiliar with the case
I suppose.

But, I suppose we should give your opinion a valid chance to be proven. So,
since you have made a claim, please either support it (show were I have relayed
false information), quietly slther away (fat chance of that!), or continue to
make up material and claim you are right without providing a shred of evidence
as to why you are right (look to Ataylor's posts for excellent examples on
doing that.)



> 
> 	Blowing smoke indeed...

You would be an expert on that subject, but you have projected too far.

DC

PS If you do not understand the term 'projected', it is a psychology term which
someone with your wealth of resources should be able to find "without leaving
your office".
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Store bought brew
Date: 25 Aug 92 14:11:30 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Aug25.154158.17369@news.acns.nwu.edu>, query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green) writes:
> 	DC, chill little boy.  Rolf wasn't at all
> insulting/popmus/annoying/etc in his post.  He gave HIS interpretation of
> things.  Oh, I don't know why I try to explain politeness to DC...  God,
> get off your lazy ass, boy, and ask your mamma why everyone calls you an
> asshole. Being correct or incorrect when stating a view is NO reason to be
> so hostile about it.
> 	Unless, one is being hostile to DC, that is.
> 	Sam
> 

As DIzzy Dean once said, "It ain't boasting if you can follow through." Now, I
realize that you would be unfmiliar with that, as you have been unable to
follow through with ANY of the facts you have alluded to. (Where are those
seatbelt stats anyway?)"

As for people like you calling me an asshole, I take a certain amount of pride
in that, because it means that you don't like the fact that I correct you.

Of course, if you got off YOUR lazy ass and did some research BEFORE opening
your mouth, ther would be no reason for me to point out where you are wrong.

Besides bucko, if you remmeber, I posted a small little post announcing that
WD-40 was a viable option to home-made brews and mace. Someone said that I
was wrong as the mace laws covered WD-40, and a prosecutor would easily convict
anyone who carried it. I asked them to do a little research before spreading
false information, whereupon YOU jump into the thread and say I am way off
base.

And, as usual, you do so without a shred of evidence.

Now, if you don't like the tone of my voice when I correct you when you are
arguing with me, you have two options:

1. Keep your mouth closed on issues that your brain has no knowledge of.
2. Do some research before posting.

Oh, I take it back, you do have a third option:

3. Avoid the newsgroup for a few days, so you can't see the shreaded remains of
your tissue paper post.

DC

PS. Have a nice day. I know I am.