HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello)
Subject: Re: stupid consumers
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 01:00:38 GMT

>|> >the japanese airlines cater better to japanese needs than us airlines
>|> >do ... 
>|> 
>|> I hardly care about the meal service on aplane- I rather care about 
>|> safety, when such a substantial difference exists.
>
>like i said: put up or shut up.  you've failed to demonstrate (with facts)
>that this is true.  being a frequent flyer and follower of the airline
>industry myself, i know of no evidence which suggests that carriers like
>singapore, jal, ana, cathay pacific, etc. are less safe than us carriers.
>
>|> Ignoring the rude attitude of your request, In fact, I do have the data.
>|> The data was compiled by a private firm, and they 
>|> logged such things as "passenger fatalities per flight", and "passenger
>|> fatalities per passenger carried".  the Japanese airlines were
>|> almost four times higher (worse) in each catagory.
>

Unfortunately, I cannot find the reference right now. I can tell you it 
was in a travel mag I picked up in a waiting room in about Feb 92. I'm
sure if you ask your travel agent, they could provide it (if you care
that much and you don't trust me). 

BUt for reference, I do have in my collection a long (full page)
ad from the SF chronicle outlining Japans "track record" on the
free trade issues.  It outlines the anti-american attitudes (wanna
point the finger at RACIST ????????????) of the toyota motor Co.
cartel in Japan.  If you care to look something up, look this up,
or SHUT UP:

Page A11   SF chronicle   Tues Sept 18th 1990. 

If anyone wants a copy, I could shrink it and fax it, or scan and
post. 

I will try to find the article from the travel mag. In the meantime,
why don't you ask your travel for the stats on JAL vs the stats 
on USAir????? 


Newsgroups: ba.general
From: rchao@well.sf.ca.us (Robert Chao)
Subject: Pussycat theater, Oakland?
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 01:29:57 GMT


Does anyone know if they're going to do anything with the old
Pussycat Theater on Telegraph, which was shut down two years ago?
By the way, they repaved the street around there so it's smoother.
-- 
Robert Chao
Oakland, California
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
From: brunner@telebit.com (Eric Brunner)
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:03:51 GMT

In article <3f7S02Mr25FI01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.205310.8206@telebit.com>, brunner@telebit.com (Eric 
>Brunner) writes:
>> n article <1992Oct8.185834.23015@leland.Stanford.EDU> 
>eap@leland.Stanford.EDU 
>> (Eric Perozziello) writes:
>> >In article <1992Oct7.003015.26189@telebit.com> brunner@telebit.com (Eric 
>> Brunner) writes:

[in response to something I wrote, my fragments omitted.]

>1) That's a state law issue, not a US issue.  No court can decide this 
>question for the entire US: state courts can only decide for their state, and 
>federal courts do not have jurisdiction in this type of case.  That being 
>said, I don't doubt that certain states have so ruled.

Um, Terry, before picking nits on state versus federal versus common
versus Hawaii or Oregon via post, which might encourage the persistent
nada-comprehedre future defendents of this thread to think themselves
judgement-proof, couldn't you have written? Welk is a California case,
and oddly, California tort cases get cited outside of California on
occasion.

If you vant to pik dis nit for the lay reader, which states don't have
A.N. would be more helpful than the semi-cryptic "federal courts do not
have jurisdiction in this type of case."

(Don't explain the allegedly semi-cryptic to me, but to the m.k or m.l
  reader)

>2) The case no doubt either a) turned on a state statute, or b) ruled where 
>no statute existed at the time.  In either event, the legislature may 
>override and either a) change the statute or b) enact a statute covering the 
>prior vaccuum.  A court decision does not forclose the legislature from 
>acting.

Um, are you suggesting that state's legislatures, usually comprised of
persons with some legal education, are going to set aside the A.N.
doctrine? Can you suggest an interested party like the Assn of A.N.
Providors :-) ? Remember this is in misc.kids, not alt.poly-cant, so
don't spend to much time on the possible-but-hardly-likely.

>Just out of curiousity, what's the cite to this turntable case?

Well, to re-post, but you are probably getting this thread via the recent
expansion of the cross-post to m.l, so you may not have seen it, it is
Welk v Souther Pac. Co. Ct. of Appeal 3rd Dist. 1913, 21 C.A. 711, 132 P. 775.

>The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.

If I had no scruples whatsoever, I'd say something coy at this point.
-- 
Eric Brunner Tule Network Services
uucp: uunet!practic!brunner
trying to understand multiprocessing is like having bees live inside your head.

Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
From: mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers)
Subject: Re: Attractive Nuisances (Was: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 12:49:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.064229.27849@u.washington.edu> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:

>Please explain why there is a difference between society granting property
>owners certain rights and society placing restrictions on how property
>owners use the property?  Or do you hold the view that property rights
>somehow are given by God but restrictions on property are merely the
>work of interfering courts and legislators?

By God?  No.  But the rights traditionally associated with property are
older than this country itself, having been inherited from England.
Even today the accepted definition of "fee simple absolute" is the right
to use and enjoy, the right to transfer and dispose of, and the right to
exclude others from it.  These rights were always subject to governmental
intrusion, originally for taxation, later for condemnation and police
actions, and then for eminent domain (which is in itself of questionable
morality).  The recognized areas of ilmitations on individual rights,
however, has remained relatively constant until recent times.

In the past 30-odd years, however, there seems to have been an
increased public awareness of property rights, and a desire to
further restrict them.  The Civil Rights Act of 1963 (?) for example
was opposed by conservatives like Barry Goldwater specifically
because of its implication for property rights.  I don't know when
the first attractive nuisance law was passed, but it wouldn't
surprise me if it were from about the same era.  The amount of
"cosmetic zoning" has also increased dramatically since then, as has
the increased attention to planned communities and urban redevelopment.

In short, a nasty, intrusive spin recently has been placed upon a
centuries-old basis for our society.  And it has been done by leaders
who haven't impressed me with their prioritization of personal freedom.
Not a happy thought.



-- 
Michael Zimmers                                    |  Home:  408 996 1984
SoftHelp                                           |  Work:  408 996 1965
Software Solutions for Open Systems                |  Data:  408 996 1974
Xref: sparky ba.general:4336 misc.kids:25664 misc.legal:18390
From: dab@ism.isc.com (Dave Butterfield)
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:55:49 GMT
Organization: x
NNTP-Posting-Host: change

lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) howls:
>>>>=>>>Exactly to whom is it the worth the cost of a fence to put the
>>>>=>>>fence around Mr. Sohl's swimming pool?
>
>   Obviously you are aware that the question HAS been answered and
>   are deliberately playing stupid.

You are incorrect.  No one has answered the question.  The reason
is that there is no such person.

I am aware that makes it difficult for you to answer.  Your error
was to try to pretend to answer it, when you could not do that.
All I did was decline to allow you to get away with that pretense.
Rather than realize your mistake and try a different approach, you
chose to escalate along the same erroneous path.

One approach you could take instead is to argue that the question
I asked is not relevant to the situation, and explain why the fence
should be erected even though no one thinks it's important enough
to pay for it, and by what mechanism the fence should be paid for.

You might even find that I would agree with such an argument,
if you make it well enough.  If you believe that I think there
shouldn't be a fence around Mr Sohl's swimming pool, then you
are mistaken.  I don't accept someone's bogus arguments just
because I might happen to agree with their conclusions.

> Hopefully you will never have children or a pool,,,,you
> would be a menace to society with either.

Your perceptions are warped.  Try reading a little more critically
and a lot less emotionally.

> Sadly, our society believes in protecting its children, but does
> not believe in retroactive abortion for sociopaths,.

Do you really believe this, or are you just ranting? If you think
either of these is "sad", then that's more a reflection on your
character than on anyone else's.

Dave
-- 
	Truth is an evaluation of a statement within a context.
Xref: sparky ba.general:4262 misc.kids:25399
From: pcd@otter.esd.sgi.com (Paul C. David)
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids
Subject: Re: stupid consumers
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:10:49 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <1992Oct6.011003.9962@leland.Stanford.EDU>, eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello) writes:
|> >I don't think that you understand how what you say come across.  Your tipoff
|> >could be that no one has rushed to your aid :*).
|> 
|> I might not expect many to, givin that this is a local BB in the most
|> liberal part of the USA.

So if you don't like it here, then leave :*).

|> Well, I don't really endorse anyone.  But I can't stand that jerk
|> that cheated on his wife for twelve years, dodged the draft, and
|> smoked pot and NOW wants to be PRESIDENT of this land. 
|> 
|> I hate to mention him by name, but everyone knows who that SLEAZE is.

Uh huh ... do I guess correctly that you will be voting for Bush/Perot?
Which of these two other guys to you prefer?  Since we know who/what you
don't like now.  Please don't try to sell me on Bush's character or
Perot's straightforward approach.  Several points about Clinton's
character "faults":

- Dan Quayle spent the Vietnam War in a country club NG outfit
  somehow passing > 1000 applicants on a waiting list for said
  outfit.

- Approximately 50% of married people have admitted extra-marital
  affairs.  While this doesn't morally justify it, it should tell
  you that it doesn't only happen to moral deviants.  Are you (or 
  have you been) married?

- I think that if you judged people soley on the basis of who they
  were years ago (with respect to pot smoking) you'd exclude a lot
  of people from being productive members of society.  

- You can't be serious about any of this crap.  It's just too silly.

- I think that Dan Quayle is lying about never smoking pot.  

- But I doubt George Bush ever has.  Unless it was a sort of ritual
  in Noriega's condo.  I would understand though, since he was just
  trying not to look like a nerd in front of important CIA contacts.

- I think Barbara Bush is a very nice woman and it was nice of
  George to have her picture put on the one dollar bill.

-- 
Paul C. David 
Applications Consulting, Silicon Graphics Inc. 
pcd@esd.sgi.com 415 / 390-2144
Xref: sparky ba.general:4412 misc.kids:25837 misc.legal:18531
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Attractive Nuisance
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:55:55 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <8bBb02A3258o01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.172944.5291@adobe.com>, pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) 
>writes:
>> As for 10-year-olds running around unattended, it seems
>> fairly common to me. 
>
>If your parents let you run around unaccompanied in a neighborhood with 
>unknown dangers at an age when you were incapable of comprehending them, it 
>sounds like they were lax in their parental duties.

The courts don't think so.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Happy owner of a new Mitsubishi Expo.
From: fred_s@earwax.pei.com (Fred Scott)
Newsgroups: ba.general
Subject: Re: First auto insurance of my life and i am getting screwed. (help!!)
Date: 9 Oct 92 23:59:19 GMT
Organization: Protocol Engines Incorporated

In article <1992Oct9.193759.570@pixar.com> Bruce@Pixar.com (Bruce Perens) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.093354.6436@netcom.com> oleg@netcom.com (Oleg  
>Kiselev) writes:
>> >called AAA.
>> 
>> Their insurance rates are higher than average.
>Maybe if you are a new driver (as this poster was).
>I don't want the readers to think that their prices are higher across
>the board. I'm male and 34 years old, and they charge half of what I
>was paying previously, and are in general _very_ competitive.
>
>Also note that the Soulthern California AAA has a reputation for bad
>service and trying to welsh on claims, but this is not the same AAA as
>we have in Northern California and Nevada. The Northern California one
>has reputation for good service.

I would take issue with that.  I've dealt with AAA in San Jose and heard
stories by other "victims".  The AAA which serves this area has the kind of
bad reputation (and, IMHO, very deserved!) you cite concerning Southern Cal
AAA.  (I, myself, have never heard anything about So. Cal. AAA one way or
the other - but around here, AAA's claim service STINKS!)

Fred
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.legal,misc.kids
From: brunner@telebit.com (Eric Brunner)
Subject: Re: Attractive Nuisance (was: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions)
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 06:57:39 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.051159.8254@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>In article <8122@public.BTR.COM> rah@public.BTR.COM (Richard A Hyde  rah@btr.com) writes:
>>That's why you cannot rely on A.N. laws.  The law says "you will be
>>punished if a child drowns in your pool".  Not, " you will be punished
>>if you do not bring your fence up to specification".  Note that some

Speaking loosely, yes. More correctly, there is no "punishment", rather
the property owner who can't establish a reasonable precaution case pays
to redress the injury. There is no way I can think of how one private
person can compel another to fence or whatever (leaving aside all the
neat wandering liquids and cattle of ordinary trespass). What you seem
to be thinking of is a public action, like zoning. Another kettle of
drowned fish.

>I haven't studied this but I would expect there to be laws which
>require A.N. to be abated. Consequences of non-compliance to extend to
>the taking of the property in question.

Different area of the law, public not private, outside of the exception
to the tort liability w.r.t. trespass.

>Anyone know for sure?

Plenty of abatement cases in real life.

>>Many? or a few?  Does anyone have an idea how long that turntable was
>>abandoned before the child was hurt?

In Welks (the Cal cite I posted) that isn't availabe. It was disused
prior to the date when the Welks moved to the residence not far away
from it, and the lock broken for some considerable length of time.

>Or how many children played on it? According to Eric B, the child
>who was injured was only doing the same as the other children.
>
>>   I read of a lawsuit in the paper last week (I know, I know)
>>where a city? was sucessfully sued for 12 million(?) dollars because
>>the playground had an asphalt surface, a child fell and was severely
>>hurt.  Where do we draw the line?

Where it is reasonable. Did the owner place climbing equipment where
the reasonably predictable turn of events could occur, over a hardend
surface? Rubber mats are cheap, sand is cheaper, and I guess that wood
chips are somewhere in between. Curious that A.N. was the trespass
general liability exception (if true), as the child in the $12M case
was not a trespasser, and frequently, governments are immune from
attractive nuisance actions. Oh well, its only a newspaper case.

The "where do we draw" query is reasonable, tort law is social policy
as much as it is an attempt to make whole the injured. 

>I'd like to know what a playground has to do with attractive nuisances.

Actually Phil there is a neat playground case, a city-owned unfenced
playground beside railroad tracks. The cite is Clayton v. Penn Central
Railroad Transportation Co., 1978, 176 Ind. App. 544, 376 N.E. 2d 524.

But we digress.


-- 
Eric Brunner Tule Network Services
uucp: uunet!practic!brunner
trying to understand multiprocessing is like having bees live inside your head.

Newsgroups: ba.general
From: eap@everest.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello)
Subject: Airline Stats 
Organization: Center for Integrated Systems, Stanford University, California
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 21:47:17 GMT

>
>No, that's not what I was trying to say at all.  There's a difference between
>representing something as your opinion and as documented fact.  When Eric
>trotted out his reference to the magazine article, he was attempting to
>document a somewhat controversial opinion of his (that American airlines are
>safer than Japanese airlines) as fact. 

No, I was stating that it was a fact that I had read it. It is a fact. I
saw it in black and white print. 

>When he does this, he then has a
>responsibility to prove it by giving reference to the exact article.
>Otherwise, he should revert to identifying it as opinion (e.g., "IMHO") or at
>least simply admitted outright that he'd thought he'd read it somewhere but
>couldn't prove it.  I don't think he did that.
>

Agreed.  I should have stated that I had read it somewhere, but NO it is
NOT an opinion.
If you don't beleive me, then back up your claim that I'm wrong.

(Here's a helpful hint:
The number for the National Transportation Safety Board in
Washington, DC is:
(202) 382-6600
They are open 9AM to 5PM Eastern Time.)
From: geoff@netcom.com (Geoffrey Leach)
Newsgroups: ba.general
Subject: Truck service, south San Jose
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:39:42 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

I need to get a used Ford F250 truck checked out prior to purchase.
Anyone have experience with a shop in the south San Jose (Capitop Xpwy / Snell)
area?

-- 
Geoffrey Leach		geoff@netcom.com
From: rhockins@enrico.tmc.edu (Russell Hockins)
Newsgroups: ba.general
Subject: WeekEnd Event
Summary: Something to do on the weekend
Keywords: weekend, Concord, bay area
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:52:51 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization


For those who have nothing to do this weekend, or who are looking for
something to do, there is an event in Concord this weekend that some of
you might be interested in.

It is called PacifiCon '92 and it is being held at the Concord Hilton
Hotel on October 16th, 17th and 18th.  Some of you may have heard of the
hobby of Amateur [ or Ham ] Radio.  This is their equavalent of the ALA
conference a couple of months ago.  Radio hobbists from all over the
country [ and some from around the world ] will be in attendance to see
the latest in equipment from the major manufacters and displays of the
various type of communication the hobby entails.  From CW [ morse code ]
to packet [ we have our own version of TCP/IP protocol ] to Amatuer
TeleVision [ want to be on TV ? ]

This Friday, October 16th being the first anniversary of the Oakland Hills
Fire and the third anniversary of the Loma Preita Earthquake gives this
convention its theme of 'EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS'.  There will be lectures
on what to expect in a large scale disaster [ such as loss of basic
services as power and/or water ], how to prepare and protect yourself and
your family and Civil response to disasters.

If you are unable to attend, you might still be able to watch.

How you ask?  Well, if you have a cable ready TV or VCR, an outside
antenna, and a fairly clear view of Mt. Diablo, here is how.

Hook up your outside antenna to your TV or VCR and aim it at Mt. Diablo.
Tune your TV to cable channel 58 and enjoy the show!  Much of the events
of the conference will be televised continously [ barring equipment
failures ] for the three days.

All this for only $5.00 . . . .  Such a Deal!

Hope to see you there!

Russ KA6FOY


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Russell Hockins               |  This civilization is recyclable           |
| Innovative Interfaces, Inc.   |              ( well most of it anyway )    |
| My own opinions  no one elses |  packet : ka6foy @ ki6yk.#nocal.ca.na.usa  |
Newsgroups: ba.general
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Attractive Nuisance
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:59:12 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery
Followup-To: ba.general

In article <1992Oct8.194814.4295@leland.Stanford.EDU>,
eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello) wrote:
> 
> Negligence is not a good thing!

Neither is stupidity, but it doesn't seem to have slowed you down
particularly.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
From: brunner@telebit.com (Eric Brunner)
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:54:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.002209.6446@leland.Stanford.EDU> eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.194203.19168@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct8.185834.23015@leland.Stanford.EDU> eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello) writes:
>>>It's a damn shame we live in a convoluted "legal-sue" society, but
>>>the issue here is TEACH the kids or WATCH the kids.  Suppose you
>>
>>How are you supposed to teach a ten-year old that an unfenced abandoned
>>railroad turntable, which probably looks a lot like equipment at
>>a playground, is dangerous and can hurt him badly, when you don't
>>even know there is one in your neighborhood?
>>
>
>Very Simple: Don't let your kid roam, and play in areas that you
>don't know about. If they wanna explore, go with 'em!
>

You were right Phil, this person can't be helped. Len, pop over to Stanford
and shoot this non-parent on your luch hour.

-- 
Eric Brunner Tule Network Services
uucp: uunet!practic!brunner
trying to understand multiprocessing is like having bees live inside your head.

Newsgroups: ba.general
From: henry@ADS.COM (Henry Mensch)
Subject: Re: Threats and Name-calling
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems; a div of Booz, Allen & Hamilton
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 03:51:38 GMT

lefty@apple.com (Lefty) wrote: 
->king@glacier.Stanford.EDU (Robin King) wrote:
->
->> 	Henry and Lefty call	people liars when they disagree.
->
->I would like you to substantiate this accusation or retract it, publically.

ditto.  what he said.

--
# henry mensch / booz, allen & hamilton, inc.  / <henry@ads.com>
# "fight the real enemy."  -- sinead o'connor, and many others.
Newsgroups: ba.general