HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage)
Subject: Re: Killing burglars.
Summary: Mr. Kosenko confuses punishment with defense and threat abatement.
Organization: Ford Motor Company Scientific Research Labs, Dearborn, MI
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 15:21:02 GMT

In <1992Aug14.181611.23008@informix.com> davek@informix.com (David Kosenko) writes:
>Sorry, but this doesn't wash.  First of all, we have the concept of
>guilty until proven innocent, generally by a jury of your peers.  Thus
>if someone breaks a law, it is up to the system to find them guilty.
>Someone breaking into your house *still* has the right to due
>process under the law.

That only applies when they are brought into court and charged
with a crime by the state, David.  A criminal does not have a
right to due process before force is used against them to halt
a crime in progress.  The difference is that, in a courtroom,
there is not a crime in progress.

Would you tell a woman not to use deadly force to stop a rapist
because there is no death penalty for rape in her state?

>Sure, if they threaten your life, you can
>shoot/whatever them in self defence.  The onus is on *you*, though, to
>be able to prove your life was threatened.  This does not always lead
>to pleasant situations (and most of the posters have expressed their
>dislike of this idea).

A criminal intruder in one's home is a threat.  To demand that the
legitimate occupant of the home accept greater risk in order to
reduce the risk to the intruder is disgusting.

>What you must remember is that once a 
>precedent has been set for the removal of basic rights, it becomes
>difficult to stop.

You are confused.  The doctrine of "A man's home is his castle" has
been enshrined in the English common law for hundreds of years.  It
is the *reversal* of this doctrine which is now giving us problems.
The basic right to be secure in one's home is under seige and has
been removed in some jurisdictions.  *That* trend is becoming
difficult to stop, and the only people who benefit are crooks.

Is that really what you want?

>Thus, when you get pulled over for drunk driving
>and the police officer proceeds to beat the shit out of you (not that
>any such event could happen in this great country of ours) because
>"you are guilty of a crime against society" [drunk driving] and
>should therefore "loose [sic] all rights," you might find that idea a
>little less appealing.

If you are equating the beating of a prisoner in police custody
with the use of force to neutralize a threat in one's own home,
it is no wonder that you are confused.

>Dave
-- 
Russ Cage                  wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (until 8/28/92)
            russ%rsi.uucp@destroyer.rs.itd.umich.edu (until whenever)
  *  When Ford pays me for my opinions, THEN they can call them theirs. *
                           _Bad_ cop.  No donut.
From: long-jan@cae.wisc.edu (Long-jang Li)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house
Subject: HELP: How to get the earnest money back !!!
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:12:11 GMT
Distribution: USA
Organization: College of Engineering, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison
Originator: long-jan@sun-38.cae.wisc.edu


  Recently, we made an offer to buy our first home here at Madion, WI through
"First Realty" agents.  We paid $2000 as the earnest money.

  However, the deal failed on Aug, 1 due to the home inspection results (a
contigency of the offer).

  The agent then notified us that he had requested our earnest money be 
returned and it would take a few days.  Up to now, Aug. 12, we havn't got
it back.

  We had tried to contact the agent and the manager of "First Realty" by phone
several times but neither of them could be reached.  We talked with the lady
who answered the phone about this.  She said it would take at least 10 days
to get the money back.

  Now, we don't know waht we can do except keep on calling and waiting.  We
need your opinions and advices on how to get the earnest money back fast.  We
also would like to know:

  -- Is there any law requesting the earnest money be returned to the buyer
     within a certain period of time once the deal fails?

  -- Is there any city or state department responsible to supervise real-estate
     business and can settle such problems?

  We appreciate any response from you.  You can e-mail me directly or post
messages here.  Thanks in advance.

-- long-jan@cae.wisc.edu (Long-Jang Li)


  
Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house
From: gws@n8emr.cmhnet.org (Gary Sanders)
Subject: Re: Garage Door Opener Regulations
Organization: HAM BBS, 614-895-2553 (1200/2400/v.32/pep)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 02:42:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.193249.24930@col.hp.com> cab@col.hp.com (Chris Best) writes:
>>I just purchased a Genie Garage Door opener and it has a mechanism built in that
>----------
>
>I do. As the door nears the fully-closed position, the force is incredible, due
>I say this after looking at MY openers - it may very well be that others are 
>installed differently.  

I have my garage door opener set so that an arm,leg or bag of garbagae 
will cause the door to return to open.. I was worried that one of my dogs
would run under the door as it was closing. When I moved in nothing would
stop the door it was set very tight and only grabing the door handle
and holding on real good would reverse it.

-- 
Gary W. Sanders gws@n8emr.cmhnet.org, 72277,1325
N8EMR @ N8JYV (ip addr) 44.70.0.1 [Ohio AMPR address coordinator]
HAM BBS 614-895-2553 (1200/2400/V.32/PEP) Voice: 614-895-2552 (eves/weekends)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house
From: patter@dasher.uucp (24224-guthrie)
Subject: Re: Shooting wild pigs
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 15:52:05 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.003922.10051@michael.apple.com> ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:

>I'd go for a compound bow rather than a crossbow just for the 
>second shot capability... I've had a pig charge me, I'd not want
>the experience with an empty crossbow ... 

You could do what the Italians did in the 15th century. Use three crossbows
and two loaders for the archer. Swap bows for the second shot.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    |
George Patterson -  | Society calls everything difficult good
                    | and makes everything good difficult.
                    |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mr@ogre.cica.indiana.edu (Michael Regoli)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house
Subject: "Active" Crawlspace Ventilation?
Date: 20 Aug 92 00:58:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogre.mr.714272329
Organization: Indiana University

OK--So I got the courage to go Down Under for the first time this
month. (My crawl space is pretty generous--I can actually stand up in
one corner; other spots are at the traditional three to four block
height.)  While it's been fairly dry here lately (save for the soaky
month of July) my crawl space floor is a bit damp and I noticed some
condensation on the underside of the floor insulation (bad thing: wet
insulation).  Luckily, though, I have a 4" drain in the low spot, so
water that does enter doesn't stand around (the crawlspace floor
slopes nicely toward the drain). 

All my vents are open.  However, I was wondering if there are
system(s) to actively ventilate the crawlspace to circulate and purge
the moist air.  At this point, it's really not my desire to install
more vents.  (The house is only a year old.)  

--
michael regoli
mr@cica.indiana.edu
regoli@iubacs.BITNET
..{ames, rutgers}!iuvax!cica!mr
From: jeffz@cray.com (Jeff Zais)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house
Subject: Re: Which garage door opener to use?
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:03:57 GMT
Organization: Cray Research, Inc

In article <1992Aug17.172251.23957@primerd.prime.com>, 
mguyott@eriador.prime.com (M. Guyott) writes:
> 
> 
> I am getting ready to purchase two garage door openers.  So far the
> "Genie" garage door openers seem to be the best/most popular.  I would
> be interested in hearing about other people's experiences with garage
> door openers and which brands of openers they would recommend.
> 
> Thanks, Marc
> ----

We had a Genie chain drive opener that went bad after four years of 
very light use (didn't put the car in the garage much while living in 
California).  The electronics board went bad and was going to cost nearly
$100 to repair.   We replaced it with a Stanley (that's what was on sale)
and have been quite happy with it.  The installation instructions were clear,
and the limiting/reversal mechanism is done in a more reliable method than 
the Genie.  

                                            Jeff
From: maryw@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Mary Williams)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:15:05 GMT
Subject: Re: Replacing windows(Retrofit or not?)
Organization: HP Signal Analysis Division - Rohnert Park, CA
Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house


Last year I replaced all my double hung windows with Marvin "Tilt Pacs". 
I considered metal frame windows, but dicided to go for the more expensive(and
much more attractive)wood frames. What a difference they make. They look 
great, insulate, and were easy easy to install.. about 1 hour per window.
They use the existing window frame and a plastic jam liner. One of the other
fine features is the windows tilt inside, so the outside of the window can be
cleaned from the inside. -email me for more details.

                         maryw
From: egreen@East.Sun.COM (Ed Green - Pixel Cruncher)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house
Subject: Re: Advice needed on ovens and ranges
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:23:42 GMT
Reply-To: egreen@East.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, RTP, NC
NNTP-Posting-Host: laser.east.sun.com

In article 19820@starbase.trincoll.edu, nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu (norman miller) writes:
>
>electric vs. gas

I'd go with a gas range.  Delta-t from when you adjust the knob until
the pan heats/cools is near zero.  Also easier to flombay (sp?) stuff.

>conventional vs. convection/microwave

I have a radiant/convection oven.  I haven't been able to discern a
difference in cooking time using the convection feature, but it does
make more noise.

>As for gas cooktop ranges, we would like to hear opinions of
>downdraft vs. updraft models.

Smoke rises.  Don't fight city hall, or mother nature.

---
Ed Green, former Ninjaite |I was drinking last night with a biker,
  Ed.Green@East.Sun.COM   |and I showed him a picture of you.  I said,
DoD #0111  (919)460-8302  |"Go on, get to know her, you'll like her!"
 (The Grateful Dead) -->  |It seemed like the least I could do...
From: gah2468@bcsaic.boeing.com (Geoffrey Hazel)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house
Subject: Re: 6" walls and 6" insulation
Date: 21 Aug 92 18:21:37 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle


RE: 2 x 6 walls cost vs 2 x 4
Dont forget the contractor will have to use 1x6 for all the window sills
and surrounds.  That will cost more.  And exterior door jambs will also
be wider.  Sill material will be 2x6 not 2x4.  

I would wonder about the value of extra insulation depending on your heating/
cooling needs.  If your climate is temperate, there may not be much value in
it.  Besides, as I understand, most heat is lost UP and through windows, not
walls.
Consider consulting with an Energy Analysis Firm.
-- 
Geoff Hazel                  | Haven't you got some real work to get 
gah2468@bcsaic.boeing.com    | done now?
Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house
From: jfw@jfwhome.FUNHOUSE.COM (John F. Woods)
Subject: Re: Telephone Outlets
Organization: Misanthropes-R-Us
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 12:56:53 GMT

In <16b23rINNn8@sixgun.East.Sun.COM> egreen@East.Sun.COM (Ed Green - Pixel Cruncher) writes:
>In article 21159@col.hp.com, tvervaek@col.hp.com (Tom Vervaeke) writes:
>>We have a cordless phone but do not use it too much. Many of the neighbors
>>do have scanner, etc.. and I live privacy. 
>This is the second time I've heard this.  Are you people really that
>worried about your neighbors buying expensive electronic equipment just
>so they can listen to your phone calls?  Even so, what are you afraid
>of, that they will know when you mother in law is coming to visit?

Do you have curtains in your windows?

Some people just don't want to broadcast any portion of their private lives,
simply on the grounds that their lives *are* private.  What in heaven's name
is wrong with that?
Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house
From: patter@dasher.uucp (24224-guthrie)
Subject: Re: Shooting wild pigs
Reply-To: patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 23:41:54 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.205854.13580@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> 21329KAD@MSU (Kim Dyer) writes:
>>>> will assure you that if you discharge a firearm in order to shoot the
>>>> pig he will arrest you.
>

>.......  Perhaps if he went after the beastie with a bow (not something
>*I* would want to do) he would be within the law.

He might also check out plans for boar spears. I've read that the general
idea is to get the pig to charge and convince him to run up on the spear.
I have no first-hand data - and don't want any.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    | The origin of the English slang term "boffin"
                    | for scientist is not known; however, it has been
George Patterson -  | pointed out that the eggs of the Puffin are perfect
                    | obloids which always return to the same position
                    | if pushed and that this is also true of the ideas
                    | expressed by boffins.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: larrabee@cse.ucsc.edu (Tracy Larrabee)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house
Subject: Re: Dryers: gas vs. electric
Date: 14 Aug 1992 17:35:15 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (CE/CIS Boards)
NNTP-Posting-Host: arapaho.ucsc.edu

In article <MACRAKIS.92Aug14122944@next4.osf.org> macrakis@osf.org (Stavros Macrakis) writes:
>In article <16eugdINN81g@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> larrabee@cse.ucsc.edu (Tracy Larrabee) writes:
>
>   ...a gas dryer puts out about 1/4 of the "greenhouse gasses"
>   ...than an electric dryer does....I don't know why this is so...
>
>Here's why: most electricity is generated by burning coal.  The
>overall efficiency of burning coal to make steam to drive turbines to
>generate electricity to heat air resistively is probably around 1/3.
>Coal has a higher proportion of carbon than does gas, and so generates
>more CO2 per BTU than gas.  Thus a figure of 1/4.  (I don't know the
>exact figures, but this seems plausible.)

Your explanation seems plausible to me, but it isn't what I was referring
to (if it was, I wouldn't have found the original report so puzzling).

The report explicitly stated that the difference in greenhouse gas emissions
was independent of the cost of procuring the energy--that is, you don't 
count any coal burned or turbines turned from any source.  The extra
greenhouse gas emission with an electric dryer is something about the
actual process of drying a load of laundry.

I should have been clear about this in the original posting.
--
Tracy Larrabee		larrabee@cse.ucsc.edu


Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house
From: oscar@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Oscar DeMartino)
Subject: Re: Killing burglars.
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 19:10:08 GMT

In article <LOWRY.92Aug19174710@rotor.watson.ibm.com> lowry@watson.ibm.com (Andy Lowry) writes:
>Gee, you might better blast away at that person who's running toward
>you down the dark sidewalk at 2:30am.  Heck, you don't *know* that
>he's not about to knock you out and take your money.  Or for that
>matter, the motorist who's speeding toward the intersection you happen
>to be crossing *might* be intoxicated and about to run you down, as
>opposed to simply being an aggressive driver with late braking habits.
>So you'd better off them too.
>
>You play the odds.  The intruder is not likely to intend you or your
>family harm beyond depriving you of some articles that are probably
>insured anyway.  They *might* be after more than that, but to assume
>the worst is ridiculous.  At some point you have to weigh the odds and
>the consequences of your various choices of action.  If, upon
>discovering the intruder, you call the police and let them take care
>of the situation, you risk exposing your family to untold horrors at
>the hands of this intruder who, as it turns out, is a psychotic serial
>murderer.  Likelihood: extremely low; potential consequences:
>extremely severe.  If you take your gun out and blow the intruder
>away, you risk killing a person who meant you no physical harm, you
>risk going to jail on manslaughter charges, and you risk that the
>weapon you're stupidly keeping in your home will accidentally be used
>against a family member or friend rather than an intruder (incidents
>of the former far exceed those of the latter case).  Likelihood:
>extremely high; consequences: severe to extremely severe, depending on
>which consequence and how you view these things.
>
>It seems clear to me that blowing away the intruder is far more likely
>to leave you in very bad straits than letting the police deal with the
>matter.
>
>Reasoning by worst-case scenarios is very rarely useful as a guide for
>decision making.  It's mostly useful when you want to put a bound on
>the damage or cost you risk incurring.  That is, you use it to
>understand your risk, but not as a basis for deciding a course of
>action.  Generally, if you want to maximize your benefits, think in
>terms of likely scenarios, not worst-case.
>--
>Andy Lowry, lowry@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7925
>IBM Research, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598

Yea you're right we should give anyone who breaks into our homes
the benefit of the doubt and ask them if they are planning on
harming us or our family before we decide what kind of action
to take.  In fact if they say they are just browsing then there is
no need to even bother the police who would take several minutes
to arrive anyway.
-- 
Oscar "Fred" DeMartino - J.P.L. (818) 306-6181             J  PPP   L
4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pas, CA. 91109  MS: 525-3660         J  P  P  L
MAYBE: oscar@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV                   J   J  PPP   L
ARPA: jpl-devvax!oscar@cit-vax   FAX: (818) 306-6912    JJJ   P     LLLLL
Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house
From: macrakis@osf.org (Stavros Macrakis)
Subject: Re: Splitting a circuit
Organization: OSF Research Institute
Date: 14 Aug 92 12:21:58

In article <jmcging.713646675@ssa.gov> jmcging@oss724.ssa.gov said:
   >...running the microwave for any extended periond pops the breaker,

In article <1992Aug13.181350.8055@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM> davel@booboo.SanDiego.NCR.COM (David Lord) replies:

   You may want to take a better look at what circuits you have available
   in the kitchen....

Agreed with all these comments, but:

   Your microwave probably draws up to about 800 watts.

It probably has a microwave OUTPUT of 500-800 watts.  To generate such
an output, though, it draws more like 900-1500 watts AC from the wall.

	-s
From: becker@edwards-vax.af.mil
Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house
Subject: Re: Killing burglars.
Date: 17 Aug 92 08:41:31 -0800
Organization: IFAST - EDWARDS Air Force Base

From: davek@informix.com (David Kosenko)writes.....

>In article <1992Aug13.132030.28884@edwards-vax.af.mil> 
>	becker@edwards-vax.af.mil writes:
>>All this about killing burglers and the justice system......I have some
>>comments.
>>
>>Number two is  it is true our system of justice sucks.  If you are
>>guility of a crime against society you should loose all rights.  Why
>>should you keep them when you violated someone elses.  A person that
>>commits a crime, like burglery, should not be able to sue or do 
>>anything but serve his time in jail.  


>Sorry, but this doesn't wash.  First of all, we have the concept of
>guilty until proven innocent, generally by a jury of your peers.  Thus
>if someone breaks a law, it is up to the system to find them guilty.

Yup, I said if you are GUILTY.  I'm sorry, I should have said proven
guilty, I just assumed you'd understand what I met.

>Someone breaking into your house *still* has the right to due
>process under the law.  Sure, if they threaten your life, you can
>shoot/whatever them in self defence.  The onus is on *you*, though, to
>be able to prove your life was threatened.  This does not always lead
>to pleasant situations (and most of the posters have expressed their
>dislike of this idea).  What you must remember is that once a 
>precedent has been set for the removal of basic rights, it becomes
>difficult to stop.  Thus, when you get pulled over for drunk driving
>and the police officer proceeds to beat the shit out of you (not that
>any such event could happen in this great country of ours) because
>"you are guilty of a crime against society" [drunk driving] and
>should therefore "loose [sic] all rights," you might find that idea a
>little less appealing.

NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!!  Knock it off!  You are saying it is ok for an
officer of the law to do whatever the heck he wants!  NO!  THat it
NOT what this is about.  Officers of the law should uphold it, and
part of upholding the law is ARRESTING offenders, not BEATING them.
I am saying that if you are proven guilty of a crime, you should lose
your rights as far as 1. no you don't get to watch tv. 2. No, you don't
get free time to just do whatever the heck it is you want. 3. No, you
don't get to vote. 4. No you don't get to have sex with your significant
other once a month. 5. No, you don't get to sue the person you committed
the crime against or any person that came to the aid of the victim.  I'm
not saying you lose your dignity.  A criminal should serve his time with
the least amount of pleasure as possible, actually with no pleasure at
all.

>Followups should probably go to talk.law or somesuch.

I don't get that group.

>Dave
>-- 
>Disclaimer: These opinions are not those of Informix Software, Inc.
>**************************************************************************
>The heart and the mind on a parallel course, never the two shall meet.
>						-E. Saliers

Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house
From: jfinn@ll.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Another brick patio question
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 13:15:51 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.192353.2426@cbfsb.cb.att.com> dwb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (david.boyle) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.152612.11962@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, sns@bondi.jpl.nasa.gov (Sam Southard) writes:
>> patio stuff deleted
>> 
>> I plan to make a wall around the base of the tree and put a planter around the
>> tree, but I'm not sure how far from the tree the wall should be.  I know not to
>> change the ground level of the tree, so this planter would probably either be a
>> place to put pots of flowers or I'd construct a planter box which was supported
>> off the ground.
>
>
>How come you can't change the ground level of the tree?
>Is it improper to build a 2-2.5 foot tall planter around a tree and then
>just fill it with dirt?  Was thinking of doing just that around a pine
>(not sure of the variety) tree in my yard.  The tree is currently about
>30 feet tall if that matters.  Thanks.  Dave

I have been told by a landscaper that you can kill a tree by raising or
lowering the ground level by as little as 6 inches.

Joe
jfinn@ll.mit.edu
From: 21329KAD@MSU (Kim Dyer)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house
Subject: Shooting wild pigs
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:55:16 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University

>>> will assure you that if you discharge a firearm in order to shoot the
>>> pig he will arrest you.

<<<long and detailed description of  Fish and Game hunting regulations
deleted for brevitity>>>

I suspect that the problem the original poster would have with the law
isn't with the FIsh and Game people, but rather with the local government
which probably has laws against discharging a firearm within city
limits.  Perhaps if he went after the beastie with a bow (not something
*I* would want to do) he would be within the law.