HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 23:49:41 GMT

In article <6900@transfer.stratus.com> leadfoot@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Mark Curtis) writes:
>If I did it again I payed the price, I couldn't pull
>that "I didn't know" crap.  Letting them get away with that kind of crap is
>criminally wrong.  You're teaching them something very wrong, something
>that will get them into big trouble sooner or later.

We're not talking about "letting them get away with that kind of stuff",
we're talking about someone getting killed. That's hardly what I call
"getting away with it".

>Children of that age aren't that dumb, but if their parents let them get
>away with acting dumb they will do it.  You have to teach them manners and
>respect for other people's property at an early age.  If you don't you're

This is all fine and good but you can't expect them to act like omniscient
angels either. Especially when it comes to an attractive nuisance.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Happy owner of a new Mitsubishi Expo.

Xref: sparky ba.general:4194 misc.kids:25210 misc.legal:18114
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:40:24 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <1992Oct5.141549.23710@linus.mitre.org> bs@fatima.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
>:No one said anything about a ban. Just secure the attractive nuisance,
>:that's all that society asks.
> 
>The problem is that there are still cases where a nuisance HAS been
>properly secured, yet the protection was circumvented. Let's say you
>put up a fence around your pool, and some idiot 10 year old climbs
>the fence and drowns in the pool. I have seen juries STILL award damages
>in such cases.

I stand corrected. All that _I_ ask is that you secure your a.n.
You're right that society goes too far sometimes. The case you
cite seems unjust to me (but I don't know the details).

That does not mean it is unreasonable to require pools to be fenced.

>There was a case a few years back in New Hampshire concerning a snowmobile
>accident. It seems some retard cut through a barbed fence that had 
>'No Trespassing' signs on it so he could cut across some field in his
>snowmobile. He ran into a ditch on the property at high speed and was
>paralized as a result. He sued and won, claiming that the property owner
>was negligent by leaving this open ditch on his property.

This also seems unjust.

>If people can get sued anyway, why should they bother with fences?

It's very simple. If you can put up a fence and reduce the chance
of killing a child by 99.99%, you should do so.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Happy owner of a new Mitsubishi Expo.
From: lstowell@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Newsgroups: ba.general
Subject: Re: stupid consumers
Date: 2 Oct 92 23:20:56 GMT
Reply-To: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Distribution: ba
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA

>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. 
   
   With attitudes like this, it is no wonder the US has lost its
   world leadership.  
   
   With knowledge of the "facts" like this, also no wonder.
   
   40 years ago was 1952.  By that time, imports WERE ALREADY THE
   TRENDY UPSCALE cars. 
   
   Some of these were truly horrid cars compared to the domestic
   competition.  But there were already MG's and Jaguars on sale
   here and showing Americans that you COULD corner without tipping
   over.   [And back then the American cars weren't that much more
   reliable than those...]

   It was NOT considered an outrage, it was a status symbol, much as
   the Lexus is today over a Cadillac...even though both might be of
   equivalent quality.

   Too bad your attitude is not "40 years ago, Americans took pride
   in their work and considered it an outrage to produce an
   unreliable or non-first class product".  If it had been back
   then, we wouldn't BE in this mess today.  And we certainly aren't
   gonna get out of it with such jingoistic attitudes as yours.
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 02:28:47 GMT

>
>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 ... (-:
>

I used to work on cars at a shop. All I can say is that these opinions
are very misguided. If you want me to fill 20 articles with counter-examples,
I will- perhaps we could take it to email. The "easy to work on" statement
is obviously an opinion, but I cannot disagree more.

The "American cars are unreliable & junk" attitude is the one thing
that pushed me into my ways of thinking that I've presented here. I
think a blatent injustice has been done to US manufacturers.

Take for example the reliablity stats that some consumer magazines
use. They used to play games by quoting "Based on owner reported 
problems in the first 90 days of ownership" in the fine print. I'll
tell you what: If I buy a new car, I hardly care what goes wrong
in this period, cause the factory covers it!  I care about 4-5-10
years down the road, when I gotta pay for it. You'll find American
cars (on the whole) shine here. 

On the other hand, I will admit that Detroit had its problems
in the seventies (mid-late). I don't think it's quite the way you 
describe (" they made a gamble that America, as a whole, would
>not notice").  I think the mistake was more "Detroit thinks 
Americans still want big cars, not little boxes".  They
WERE wrong here. They misread the market.  

Xref: sparky ba.general:4107 misc.kids:24957
From: rtener@pyrman2.mis.pyramid.com (Rex Tener)
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Date: 2 Oct 92 20:38:42 GMT
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Oct2.143809.15201@unet.net.com> linda@wendy.net.com (Linda Hill) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.043400.5822@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> ren@Turing.ORG (Karen Prestemon) writes:
>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?!

I think it's because we don't like public confrontation (like the net is such
harmonious place).  I was at the Arizona Sonora Desert Museum in July.
At the natural terrain mountain lion enclosure, there was a couple
holding their two year old over the steel bar fence so that the child
could see the two mountain lions swimming in the moat below.  I almost
went into shock.  I wanted to say something, but I didn't want to
distract the father.  If he had dropped the child, the kid would have
been dead almost instantly.  Afterwards, I tried to explain to the couple
that this wasn't probably a safe thing to do, but the parents weren't worried
at all.  At least if the father dropped the kid, I could have been
a witness for the museum.  *Nothing* surprises me anymore.


Rex Tener                                                 rtener@pyramid.com
Pyramid Technology                                            A.M.A. #580669 
"Radical is a man with both feet firmly planted in the air." - F.D.R. (1944)
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: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:02:10 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.054209.26486@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:

>In article <1992Oct3.045247.13563@netcom.com> mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:

>>According to whom?  I'm aware of the legal implications, but you're about
>>the last person I know who'd hide behind codified law to justify his
>>opinions.
>>
>>From what *moral* perspective do you draw the right to impose your
>>personal values on responsibility onto others, and then subject them
>>to economic coercion to meet your personal agenda?

>1) A parent may not even know of the existence of an a.n., as in the
>turntable case prominent in this area of law.

Well, since we've already begun compromising principles, let's relax
them a bit further.  Part of your argument is that its impossible for
a parent to know all the time where a child is and what he's doing.
Fine; I accept that.  But most parents I know of could do a lot 
better than they currently do, and this is what bugs me so much about
AN laws.  

I'd be less hostile to your agenda if it sounded more like a sincere
attempt to save lives, and less of an attempt to make the world a
great-big-safe-and-happy-playground where you can dump your kids and
effectively alleviate yourself from parenthood for a few hours.  And
know that should something bad happen in that playground, you've at
least got the comfort of a lawsuit to fall back on.

(I realize that this paragraph got a bit nasty, so now's probably
a good time to point out that it is definitely NOT directed at
Phil personally.  From what I've seen of his posts, he's probably
a pretty good parent, and if others were more like him, the AN issue
would probably be a non-topic.)

>>And what will you say to those who find handguns in the household
>>to be just as grave a danger as uncovered swimming pools, and insist
>>that you turn yours in?

>That's a different issue. Do not most abortion advocates go around
>opposing waiting periods on abortions but not on firearms purchases?
>"A right delayed is a right denied", but only for the rights you
>care about.

No, it's the same issue:  personal rights vs. public safety.

How do you reconcile your willingness to impose an arbitrary requirement
upon a property owner in order to make the world safer for your kid(s),
then turn around and deny someone else to make a similar imposition
upon you?

-- 
Michael Zimmers                                    |  Home:  408 996 1984
SoftHelp                                           |  Work:  408 996 1965
Software Solutions for Open Systems                |  Data:  408 996 1974
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
From: mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers)
Subject: Attractive Nuisances (Was: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 10:46:28 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.182856.17462@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:

>In article <1992Oct5.154955.16822@netcom.com> mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:

>>Where do you draw the line?  What do you do if studies indicate that,
>>of the remaaining fatalities that still occur with covered pools, 5%
>>could have been eliminated if the owner built 12' fences around his
>>property, put padlocks on all the gates and changed the combinations
>>every week?

>I believe the requirements are part of the law and as such, I consider
>that to be a reasonable guideline. I haven't looked at the details but
>would expect something like 6 foot fences, etc.

I'd like a better answer, please.  First, what is it about this
particular law that you find so satisfactory?  Second, exactly
what coercive measures are you prepared to codify?  And finally,
why did you draw the line where you did?  I'd prefer that the
answer to the last question come from your values and not existing
law.
-- 
Michael Zimmers                                    |  Home:  408 996 1984
SoftHelp                                           |  Work:  408 996 1965
Software Solutions for Open Systems                |  Data:  408 996 1974
Newsgroups: ba.general
From: eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello)
Subject: Re: stupid consumers
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 22:09:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.201438.28137@dante.uucp> mason@dante.uucp (Mason Jones) writes:
>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. 
>: >
>: >And since you haven't figured it out on your own, let me tip you off
>: >on the *real* difference between the Japanese consumer companies and
>: >their US counterparts:  the Japanese are much, much more market-driven.
>: >In simpler terms, they ask us what we want and then find a way to give
>: >it to us.
>: 
>: Yeah, you bought it hook line and sinker, didn't you. American business
>: is out to get you, right? 
>
>As a possibly interesting note to add to this conversation, I just
>got back from spending a few weeks in Japan, and while I was there I
>took a walk through some of the big electronics shops in Tokyo and
>Osaka.  Your problem seems to be with the Japanese corporations
>undercutting American prices because of trade tariffs.  I don't think
>that's the problem, though, because I noticed in Japan that the prices
>on electronics goods are far, far cheaper than prices in the U.S. for
>equivalent products.  That is, I could buy a Sony television for much,
>much less in Japan than I could buy a Zenith television for here in the
>U.S.  Now why, pray tell, is that?  Perhaps the Japanese companies
>pay much more attention to what people want, and produce it for less.
>There's no magic to it, they're just more intelligently managed, I
>suspect.  If the U.S. companies want to compete, they should probably
>pay attention to manufacturing good products for less, and not whine
>about the U.S. government's policies, asking them to raise tariffs on
>Japanese imports so they'll match the U.S. companies' outrageously
>high prices.

Perhaps, due to the high imbalance of trade, your dollar isn't worth a
damn. 

Newsgroups: ba.general,ba.market,misc.forsale
From: asj4j@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU (JonaX)
Subject: Re: Gifts delivered to home or work
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: ba
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 09:25:37 GMT

barb@cellnet.com  writes:
> All that glitters this holiday season, the spirit, 
> the lights, the glorious gifts.
> 
> Let me treat you and your friends to a complimentary 
> Mary Kay facial, or choose a customized gift for the
> important person in your life (delivered to your work).
> 
> If you are looking for a consultant, I'm here for all
> your skin care and gift needs.
> 
> 		Lisa   (510) 516-7303
> 		* Skin Care
> 		* Nail Care
> 		* Cosmetics
> 		Delivered to home or work!
> 
> 
> This is posted for a friend, please respond only
> to her at the number above.  
> 

PLEASE DON'T POST MULTI-LEVEL MARKETING PRODUCTS ON THE NETWORK....!
Not only is it a form of commercial advertisement but it is against
Mary Kay rules of advertisement!!!!
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: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:19:40 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.151503.1992@ttinews.tti.com> reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland) writes:

>In article <1992Oct3.045247.13563@netcom.com> mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:

>>And what will you say to those who find handguns in the household

>NOOOOOO!!!!!  DON'T START THAT ONE!!!!!  PLEASE!!!!!!

Sorry, Reid, but it had to be done.  Phil will now have to think very
carefully to avoid hypocrisy, and maybe we'll even get some of the
net.libertarians involved.  What fun.
-- 
Michael Zimmers                                    |  Home:  408 996 1984
SoftHelp                                           |  Work:  408 996 1965
Software Solutions for Open Systems                |  Data:  408 996 1974
Newsgroups: ba.general
From: douglas@netcom.com (Douglas Mason)
Subject: Re: Fry's -- Yet Another Bad Experience
Organization: Approach Software Corp.  Redwood City, CA  94063
Distribution: ba
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 08:55:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.205751.25081@adobe.com> mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang) writes:

>Indeed. I have never shopped at a store where even the smallest 
>purchase by check requires the approval of a manager. Of course,
>there is usually only one manager around, even when most of the
>registers are open, so you get to wait around until somebody
>shows up, looks at the check for 0.5 seconds, and then hands it
>back to the cashier after putting a slash on it. An absolute
>complete waste of time. Even small stores have check verification
>systems these days. But Fry's? Nah that would make life too easy
>for everybody.

Actually they do use those check verification machines, much to my
demise.  I literally flew down to the Sunnyvale store from Redwood City
one night after work because they were the only place in town that had
a printer adapater that we badly needed.  Foolishly I had only grabbed
my driver's license and checkbook.  I ran in the door just before they
had closed (that store is a dump compared to Palo Alto...) and grabbed my
part, ran up to the checkout and wrote a check from University National
Bank in Palo Alto.

Whooops!  It was after 5:00pm and they had no way to verify my $100 check.
I told them that I had been sent down there by their other store, blah, 
blah, blah.  That I spent about $10k a month in Palo Alto and they could
probably call someone there to verify that I've never passed a bad check
there, blah, blah, blah.  

...in the end, after much abrasiveness the manager told me to come back
tomorrow morning after 9:00am and he would welcome my check.

Granted, it's my banks fault I suppose for not having the means to check
my funds after 5:00pm, but what about those check systems that places
like Good Guys use?  You can write a check there at midnight and they
seem able to check it, unlike Fry's.

Jesus, I hate that place now.

-DM


-- 
Douglas Mason                                    douglas@netcom.COM
Network administration / software development    douglas@netcom.UUCP
Approach Software Corporation                    +1 415.306.7889

Newsgroups: ba.general
From: mason@dante.uucp (Mason Jones)
Subject: Re: stupid consumers
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 20:14:38 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. 
: >
: >And since you haven't figured it out on your own, let me tip you off
: >on the *real* difference between the Japanese consumer companies and
: >their US counterparts:  the Japanese are much, much more market-driven.
: >In simpler terms, they ask us what we want and then find a way to give
: >it to us.
: 
: Yeah, you bought it hook line and sinker, didn't you. American business
: is out to get you, right? 

As a possibly interesting note to add to this conversation, I just
got back from spending a few weeks in Japan, and while I was there I
took a walk through some of the big electronics shops in Tokyo and
Osaka.  Your problem seems to be with the Japanese corporations
undercutting American prices because of trade tariffs.  I don't think
that's the problem, though, because I noticed in Japan that the prices
on electronics goods are far, far cheaper than prices in the U.S. for
equivalent products.  That is, I could buy a Sony television for much,
much less in Japan than I could buy a Zenith television for here in the
U.S.  Now why, pray tell, is that?  Perhaps the Japanese companies
pay much more attention to what people want, and produce it for less.
There's no magic to it, they're just more intelligently managed, I
suspect.  If the U.S. companies want to compete, they should probably
pay attention to manufacturing good products for less, and not whine
about the U.S. government's policies, asking them to raise tariffs on
Japanese imports so they'll match the U.S. companies' outrageously
high prices.


  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
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 23:50:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.212407.8042@netcom.com> mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.161624.19441@adobe.com> 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

Blame is secondary. Death is primary.

>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?

"Others" are assumed to be competent adults. Children are not.
Perhaps you have noticed that children are accorded special
treatment under the law in many areas.

>Could this be due to your being a parent but not a property owner?

I am both.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Happy owner of a new Mitsubishi Expo.

Newsgroups: ba.general