HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mason@dante.uucp (Mason Jones)
Subject: Re: stupid consumers
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 20:23:22 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Charnel House

eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello) writes:
: >: And if you don't like our products, then go work in a country
: >: that you think is better. 
: >
: >Why not just buy products which work well, and thereby give the US
: >companies a reason to get off their asses instead of trying to get
: >by on their reputations, earned long ago when they didn't have any
: >real competition?
: 
: I think the fault lies in DC, where our companies are forced to 
: fight with their hands tied behind their backs. 
: The US gov't almost encourages imports, while japan heavily 
: discourages imports.

Nonsense.  Having just returned from a trip to Japan, I can tell you
that in many areas the Japanese don't have the slightest interest in
*buying* imports.  In electronics, it would be absurd, because it's
pretty obvious to everyone that the Japanese companies make better
products more cheaply (see my other post about this).  In the auto
industry, it's a matter of the U.S. companies not having the slightest
clue about what the Japanese buyers want.  I was very curious about
the cars being driven over there, which are *illegal in the U.S.*
Yes, that's right, the U.S. will not allow the Japanese auto companies
to import the minicars and minivans -- I'd buy one in a second, because
they're extremely cheap, very small and economical.

Face it, the fault lies in the executives operating the U.S. companies.
They're clueless, they don't pay attention to what people want, they
don't spend enough time analyzing their production flaws, and generally
don't care about much except their enormous compensation packages.


  VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
             Mason Jones           Charnel House Productions
             P.O. Box 170277, San Francisco 94117-0277 U.S.A.
   ...{uunet,sun}!hoptoad!dante!mason   or   dante!mason@hop.toad.com
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
From: kudzu@netcom.com (Michael Sierchio)
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Organization: True Love, and Home-Grown Tomatoes
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:13:24 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.154058.29552@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> 
	whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:

>The line is very clear.  It is (or should be) the line which marks
>the boundary of my property.  Neighbor's kids do not belong on my
>property....period!  

You're entitled to your opinion, of course,  however misinformed.  It's
often the case that some particular person's notion of what is right
differs from the law.  In which case you'd be doing yourself a favor to
learn and accept what the law says.  It is seldom arbitrary and, in the
case of Common Law, has existed since before there were lawyers.

You have certain very specific rights regarding your domicile, but your
rights regarding the surrounding property are more restrictive. In some
cases, you can limit access to your property, but you are also limited
in the means you use to do so.  

If you own a swimming pool, you have certain liabilities, just as you
do in owning a motor vehicle -- if a pedestrian steps out in front of
your car and you hit him unavoidably, breaking his legs, it's his fault
and your liability.

-- 
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Michael Sierchio                          1563 Solano Avenue, Suite 123 |
|  kudzu@netcom.com                                Berkeley, CA 94707-2116 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers)
Newsgroups: ba.general
Subject: Re: stupid consumers
Date: 2 Oct 92 21:07:30 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Memes-R-Us
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello) writes:

>Forty years
>ago, when people actually cared about this country, it would have been
>an outrage to buy a foreign car (as your first car). Now people think
>it's trendy or something. If you don't like this country- leave- you're
>not wanted. And if you don't like our products, then go work in a country
>that you think is better. 

Look at the papers. Open it to the Wanted section. Check out the cars.

How many ten- or twenty-year-old American cars do you see for sale ? Not
many. You might see some American cars for sale, however, that are thirty,
or forty, years old, however.

How many ten- or twenty-year-old Japanese cars do you see ? Quite a few.
The Volkswagen has an excellent record for longevity. So does the Datsun.
The Datsun L20 engine is regarded by many as a classic design.

Now look at the motorcycles. Here, the same pattern exists, except that
amongst Japanese bikes, Yamahas and Kawasakis seem to fall apart faster.
Ten year old Hondas are not unknown, however, and even older. Suzukis
also have an excellent reputation.

What happened, here in America, ten or twenty years ago ? I call it the
Gremlin Phenomenon, for lack of a better term - and because I remember my
mom's Gremlin. A pathetic vehicle, all plastic, handled like a bathtub.
Designed to break. Designed obsolescence is the buzzword.

To add insult to injury, note the prices of these various vehicles. The
Japanese vehicles use less gas, run more efficiently with fewer parts,
are easier to fix ( the tangled mess underneath the average huge American
car's hood is pretty obviously designed to _mandate_ a rack before you
can even change the sparkplugs, and even then you may not get them changed
if the garage owner is in a rush ) ... and cost less to purchase.

I care about this country very much, but I also care about the world in
which it exists, and it is a very short-termed perspective which mandates
that one purchase a huge, inefficient, overpriced vehicle no matter what
the cost to one, now and in the future.

When American car manufacturers started making cars that broke down easily
and were hard to repair, they made a gamble that America, as a whole, would
not notice. They lost this gamble. It renews my faith in America ... (-:

-- richard

-- 
=====
-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration
                    Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
Xref: sparky ba.general:4220 misc.kids:25301 misc.legal:18174
From: shannah@netcom.com (Teri Miller)
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Date: 6 Oct 92 20:15:06 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


I managed to stay out of this for a very long time, but upon reading
this, my thoughts suddenly crystallized, so I wanted to ask folks a
question.

mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:
> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>>But, libertarian principles only apply among competent, consenting
>>adults.  Children are none of the above. They are not competent,
>>they can not consent by definition, and they are not adults.
>
>But there are two candidates for blame here:  the parent and the property
>owner.  Why do you blame the property owner for something that wasn't
>his fault.  Or do find it unreasonable for someone to expect others to
>obey the law?
>
Would you take a candy bar, sit it where a child can reach it, take a
bite from it from time to time, yet refuse to allow the child any?

If you have the same candy bar, but you're enjoying it at a different
table, or away from the child somewhere, would you expect to have to
give the child any?

I agree that parents should watch their children.  I agree that the
actions of children are the parents' responsibility.  However, in the
case of something that a child is going to desperately want to enjoy,
I think it's only reasonable to not leave it out where the child can
get ahold of it easily.  I think it's actually cruel to a child to tease
it with something that you have no intention of allowing it to have.

HOWEVER, please, before knees start jerking here, I am also firmly in
favor of "reasonable" precautions.  And once reasonable precautions
are taken, I don't think a homeowner should be held responsible.

If I had a pool, with a fence, and the gates were closed, and there 
were no large holes in it, I feel I would have discharged my duty.
I don't think I should have to put padlocks on the gates, get a
pool cover, put barbed wire on top of the fence, or hire a guard to
sit at the pool with a gun.

If a child were to climb over the fence, or even unlatch (I would make
it difficult for a small child to do that) the gates to get at the 
pool, I would hold the parents responsible, and even if I didn't have
any legal recourse, I would still insist that they do something about
the child.  If the child dies, it is, of course, a hellish price for
the child to pay.  However, if I have taken all reasonable precautions,
and the child insists on coming in, then, sorry, I am not going to
beat myself up over it if the child gets hurt.

I see it as being very analagous to sitting at a separate table eating
a candy bar.  If I'm not teasing the child, and the child insists on
coming over to beg for part of my candy, and hurts themself on the way over,
I don't think it's my fault.  If I want to eat candy, I feel I have
the right to do that.  Just as I feel I have a right to have a pool
in a fenced-off backyard, and not have to worry about being sued if a
child is doing something unreasonable in order to enjoy it.
Xref: sparky ba.general:4052 ba.music:1684
From: lkvarda@booboo.wpd.sgi.com (Lisa Kvarda)
Newsgroups: ba.general,ba.music
Subject: Sound Proofing
Date: 1 Oct 92 03:56:21 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.


Anyone have any suggestions for sound proofing a garage?  We 
want to be able to play guitars/drums in there without disturbing
the neighbors.

We're thinking of picking up some egg-carton looking foam, and 
some of that white chalky board (seen it at OSH, but can't
remember what it's called).  We'd put the foam around the garage
and then the chalky board over that.

Any other ideas?  And any ideas where to get this stuff cheap?


Lisa
Newsgroups: ba.general
From: lzs@indetech.com (Lynn Z. Schneider)
Subject: Re: Framing places
Keywords: framing prints art
Organization: Independence Technologies, Inc. Fremont, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 00:57:41 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.213813.7829@smsc.sony.com> tin@smsc.sony.com (Le Tin) writes:
>Hi folks,
>
>  I have collected several nice prints and paintings.  I would
>like to get them framed.  Having never done this before, I am
>at a loss as to places to have this done.
>

I have always been satisfied with the craft store LeeWards. They
have a great selection of pre-made frames, but you can also have
them frame for you. Their prices are usually very good. Much
lower than galleries or other frame shops.

-Lynn


-- 
Lynn Schneider              lzs@indetech.com
{sun,sharkey,pacbell}!indetech!lzs
Fremont, CA
 
Xref: sparky ba.general:4218 ba.market.misc:7644
From: tjb@Apple.COM (Tom Barrett)
Newsgroups: ba.general,ba.market.misc
Subject: Springsteen Tix For Sale
Date: 6 Oct 92 20:11:51 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

I have four tickets to Bruce's Friday night show, 7:30 PM, at
the Shoreline Amphitheatre.  These are grass seats (general
admission).  I'm asking face value for the tickets: $28.50.

Tom
(408)974-3364
tjb@apple.com
-- 
-
Tom Barrett  A/UX Engineering
Apple Computer MS 50UX 10300 Bubb Road, Cupertino CA 95014
{amdahl,decwrl,hplabs,sun,voder,nsc,mtxinu,dual,unisoft}!apple!tjb
	OR tjb@apple.com
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids
From: rabbit@lindy.Stanford.EDU (Aleta Hanna)
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:41:59 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.010529.21970@leland.Stanford.EDU> eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello) writes:
>
>No matter what it costs?  What if it costs $1000 or more?
>You CAN'T *insure* no access w/o incurring huge expenses.  Are you 
>willing to pay for your neighbor's expenses or do you think that
>he should fill in his expensive pool?  I shouldn't have my 
>finances and lifestyle compromised because of other people's
>desire to have kids and lack of responsibility/inability
>to control them.  I do agree that people should take reasonable
>care to make sure that things are safe. A small fence around
>a pool is reasonable, but a maximum security fence is unreasonable.
>
>
>I'm really sick of the system the way it is: I pay (thru taxes) to
>send everybody's kids to school.  Then, I'm responsible (legally)
>for making sure they're safe. Then I have to put up with them
>yelling and screaming out of control whereever I go. Parents (many
>of them)  take so little responsibility these days. Parents
>should bear the costs and responsibilities of having kids. 
>Don't get me wrong.  I love kids.  But I think our current system
>forces society to pay for everyone elses kids. 
>
>I'm not trying to pick on you, Judy. You sound like a reasonable 
>Parent. I just get sick of the way many parents try to pawn off
>(what should be parental) responsibilities on others. It's not
>fair to others, and it's not fair to the children. 
>
>

I'm responding to Eric's post because it represents some sentiments I

even if they would not be held responsible?  Would Judy's neighbor be
thinking of her parenting technique every time he looked out into his
backyard and remembered finding the body of a two year old floating in
his pool because he couldn't find the time to fix his gate?

Many people resent being forced to do a thing just because some one tells
them to.  Nevertheless, should we really mind so much taking whatever
steps within our means to ensure to the best of our abilities that a
child, any child, will not be harmed?

Furthermore, a neighbor, such as Judy's, may be in violation of City
and/or County ordinances.  Many cities and counties have enclosure
requirements for residential as well as public pools.  Commonly 48"
fence with a self latching gate.

Aleta
 
*************************
Aleta Hanna
Maps and Records
Stanford University
rabbit@lindy.stanford.edu
************************* 
Newsgroups: ba.general
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 00:50:43 GMT

In article <7000@transfer.stratus.com> leadfoot@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Mark Curtis) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.005207.23916@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
>>In article <6998@transfer.stratus.com> leadfoot@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Mark Curtis) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct5.053355.26183@adobe.com>, pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:

>>>That is the point I was making earlier, it is your view and only a view
>>>not the end all truth.  Fencing children is unacceptable ... WHY!  It's
>>>done all the time.   ...

>>  It isn't done "all the time", it is only done on occasion.  There
>>is a dangerous time of 10 - 15 years in a child's life (perhaps
>>age 2 to about age 15) in which one worries particularly about an
>>attractive nuisance.  I don't consider it acceptable to keep children
>>fenced in all that time.

>I didn't say you had to fence them up everywhere.  Just keep them in
>places that welcome children and are willing to take on the risk.

>Not everyone wants to rearrange their lives to suit someone else's
>children.  I'm not talking about your sister's child or something
>of that nature.  I'm talking about the whole neighborhood's children

Amen to that. Why should I fence my pool when the parents can fence in
their children? Other benefits that would accrue to the neighborhood
would be fewer scratched cars, fewer tortured cats, less garbage dumped,
fewer broken windows, and less noise.

I think we need a law requiring parents to be liable for all damages
their children cause.



-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: ba.general
From: gbarish@oracle.uucp (Gregory James Barish)
Subject: WANTED: Toyota Mechanic in Tri-Valley
Reply-To: gbarish@oracle.uucp (Gregory James Barish)
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Belmont, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:30:00 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

Hey there;  I have an 88 Toyota Tercel and I was interested
in recommedations for a good mechanic in the Tri-Valley area
(that's Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublin, San Ramon).

Thanks.

greg
**************************************************************
 Gregory James Barish         INTERNET...: gbarish@oracle.com     
 Development Services         PHONE............: 415.506.2470 
 Oracle Corporation             
Newsgroups: ba.general
From: eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello)
Subject: Re: stupid consumers
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: ba
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 01:01:12 GMT

>
>: Forty years
>: ago, when people actually cared about this country, it would have been
>: an outrage to buy a foreign car (as your first car). Now people think
>: it's trendy or something. If you don't like this country- leave- you're
>: not wanted. And if you don't like our products, then go work in a country
>: that you think is better. 
>
>Why not just buy products which work well, and thereby give the US
>companies a reason to get off their asses instead of trying to get
>by on their reputations, earned long ago when they didn't have any
>real competition?
>

I think the fault lies in DC, where our companies are forced to 
fight with their hands tied behind their backs. 
The US gov't almost encourages imports, while japan heavily 
discourages imports.

Newsgroups: ba.general
From: ashok@kpc.com (Ashok Yerneni)
Subject: Any recommendation for a good Auto Service Center?
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Inc, Santa Clara, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:36:02 GMT


I need to get my Mazda(MX6) tuned and serviced. Any recommendations
for a good reliable place to go? Any opinions on the Mazda Dealer
on El Camino in Sunnyvale(Sunnyvale Mazda, I think)??


thanks


Ashok

ashok@kpc.com

Newsgroups: ba.general
From: linda@wendy.net.com (Linda Hill)
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:38:09 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.043400.5822@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> ren@Turing.ORG (Karen Prestemon) writes:
>
>Anyway, forgeting about pools for a second, I just want to tell about
>something that I saw the other day.  I was at a fast-food establishment,

[story about a child nearly getting run over three times in a row due
to negligent parents]

>I was furious, and when I got home, told my husband what had happened.
>What the hell were these people thinking?  Why didn't they take a
>hold of him in the middle of a parking lot where there was very high
>traffic volume?

This story really has my stomach churning with anger.  And then Phil Ngai
tops it off by telling us that we have to follow society's decision.
Bullshit.  Maybe it's time to change that decision.

What I want to know is, why are we all so afraid/too polite/whatever to
*say* anything to people when we see something like this going on?!  Human
beings are one of the few species that have to *learn* how to rear their
young.  It isn't all instinctive.  So when we see someone being an obviously
bad parent (and I'm not talking about minor differences in parenting
styles), why can't we step in and tell them so?!

Actually I realize most of them will resent us for interfering, but won't
we at least feel better for having pointed out their irresponsibility to
them directly?  And just maybe, it will give them something to think about
the next time they're in public?

I think I would have gotten out of the car screaming at that parent ("Are
you CRAZY?!!" springs to mind...).
-- 
Linda V. Hill                           Email: linda@net.com
Network Equipment Technologies          Phone: (415) 780-5785
800 Saginaw Drive, 23.2.3               Fax:   (415) 780-5001
Redwood City, CA 94063 
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
From: mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers)
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:19:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.171436.622@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:

>In article <6910@transfer.stratus.com> leadfoot@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Mark Curtis) writes:

>>Once again you have missed the point.  If they aren't in the neighbor's
>>backyard illegally swimming then this isn't going to happen.  Well it
>>could, the parents of the children might have a pool.  But as long as
>>the children are taught to respect other peoples rights, wishes, and
>>property it will not happen.  Simply as that.  It really isn't that hard
>>to understand.

>Only if the children are perfect. I know I wasn't perfect as a
>child. Is death an appropriate punishment for trespassing an
>unfenced, unguarded area?

Phil, you aren't addressing the issue.  It is *not* whether death is
an "appropriate punishment".  No one has argued this.  It isn't 
punishment anyway; it's a very unfortunate accident.

The issue is, if and when such an accident occurs, why do insist on
holding a third party accountable because of their ownership of
an attractive nuisance?  It isn't their fault that the parent blew
it and allowed their child into a dangerous situation.

An element of judgement must be used here, as someone who left poisoned
candy bars by the sidewalk in their front yard is clearly culpable.
But I for one have a very hard time implicating pool owners when 
children trespass and drown.
-- 
Michael Zimmers                                    |  Home:  408 996 1984
SoftHelp                                           |  Work:  408 996 1965
Software Solutions for Open Systems                |  Data:  408 996 1974
Newsgroups: ba.general
From: mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers)
Subject: Re: What happened to KOME's morning show?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: ba
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 00:31:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.213502.25640@adobe.com> dauphin@adobe.com (Kimberly Dauphin) writes:

>I saw a question pertaining to this posted about 2 weeks
>ago, but haven't seen any answers.
>
>What happened to Bob Lilly on KOME's morning show?  All of
>a sudden, he was gone, and now there's Stephanie Dominguez
>who seems to be a permanent fixture.  Jeff Blazy hasn't
>said one word about the whole thing.

I just put a call into the KOME program director; I'll post the answer
I get.

Losing Bob was bad enough, but this new bimbo is too much.  I'm starting
to get suspicious -- she's not the first talentless female they've tried
giving spot duty to on the show.  (Remember what a disaster Janine Seigel
was when Blazy and Bob went on vacation a couple of years ago?  Halfway
through the first week they went to a temporary "all-music" format.)
I'm beginning to wonder if Jeff's offering air time to aspiring lady
DJs with bodacious ta-tas and a sporting attitude toward life...


-- 
Michael Zimmers                                    |  Home:  408 996 1984
SoftHelp                                           |  Work:  408 996 1965
Software Solutions for Open Systems                |  Data:  408 996 1974
Xref: sparky ba.general:4031 misc.kids:24741