HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lstowell@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Date: 2 Oct 92 23:46:29 GMT
Reply-To: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA

>>>Exactly to whom is it the worth the cost of a fence to put the
>>>fence around Mr. Sohl's swimming pool?  Let that person speak up.
>>>
>lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) writes:
>>   ME, if it's my pool.
>
In article <1aimfrINNt3g@smaug.West.Sun.COM> dab@ism.isc.com (Dave Butterfield) writes:
>Unless your pool and Mr. Sohl's pool are one and the same, you
>have not answered the question.
>
   Well, if MY 4 year old were to drown in HIS pool, you can believe
   your bippie that his wallet (plus any applicable criminal
   charges) would MUCH rather pay for the !@#$!@# fence if he ever
   gets out of jail or the poorhouse.  

   In other words if he is too stupid or uncaring to adequately
   secure a pool in California, the first youngster injured in the
   thing would rapidly result in his becoming very painfully aware
   of civil liability and case law in this state.   

   My original posting meant that I would feel morally obligated to
   protect the community of children from my attractive nuisance if
   it were my pool--whether or NOT it also happens to be the law.  

   Does THAT answer your stupid question?
From: eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello)
Newsgroups: ba.general
Subject: Re: stupid consumers
Date: 3 Oct 92 02:45:57 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA


I wrote:

>
>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. 
>

I should clarify:

I was comparing to Japanese cars. I think many Eurpoean cars have
excellent long term reliability.
From: mwallis@mrspoc.Transact.COM (Michael Wallis)
Newsgroups: ba.general
Subject: Re: The Second City
Date: 29 Sep 92 22:24:04 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Transact Software, Inc., Los Altos, CA

kanner@Apple.COM (Herbert Kanner) writes:

>There is an ad in the local papers for: "From the creators of SCTV:
>The Second City," 8pm October 17 at Stanford's Memorial Auditorium.

>Is this any relation to the Chicago company called Second City? Reply

Yes, either the Chicago or Toronto company. Much of SCTV actually came 
from the Canadian performers.

-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
Michael Wallis						mwallis@transact.com
Transact Software, Inc, Sunnyvale, CA	(Windows Development For HealthCare)
Newsgroups: ba.general
From: chguest@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov ( Charles J. Guest )
Subject: Re: Fry's -- Yet Another Bad Experience
Organization:  ... a Republic... if you can keep it.
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 21:33:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.152847.2830@ultra.com> wayne@ultra.com (Wayne Hathaway) writes:
=>As the originator of this latest Fry's thread, I should report the
=>following.
=>
=>The other day I got a phone message on my home answering machine from
=>Mike Queenan, manager of the Sunnyvale Fry's.  I talked with him this
=>morning, and he basically said the following.  (By the way, our
=>
=>First, they know they have a problem speeding people through the
=>layers of paperwork involved in an exchange; that's obvious to anyone.
=>His explanation for the layers of checking and approving were "to
=>protect the customer from receiving the wrong merchandise," rather
=>than the anti-shoplifting bent that I would have expected.  (This


Gee.. I hate to seem hyper-critical, but this seems like BS to me. The
idea that you have to go through 5 people to get a return done, just to
protect YOU from getting the wrong thing?!?!?  Come On... they don't go
back into the store with you to 'help' you make certain of what you got.
They also don't need triplicate forms to help you.  They don't need
supervisors initials TWICE to help you.  Most of all they don't need to
add a supervisor and a representative from the item's department (making
the total SEVEN people) when you ask to open a package to insure that it
is complete since they have a bad reputation about re-shrinkwraping.

No it seems that they have a paranoid vision of security and a dim view
of the customer and employee honesty... this is opinion bassed on
observation only.... I am certain that they would suggest a different
reason.

This also does not address the thread about defective items being
re-shrink wrapped....(beg your pardon... allegedly re-shrink wrapped).

I had almost given up on a reply from Fry's since I faxed them a long
notw over a week ago, but i will wait a little longer... seems Wayne
needed to wait 3+ weeks for his response.

Charles


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ *READ* ---> The opinions expressed above are to the best of my knowledge, +
+ however all options should be discussed with persons who have professional+
+ training with the subjects covered here. * ALL POSSIBLE DISCLAIMERS APPLY!+
+ ____FROM: chguest@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov =>or<= sun!ames!pioneer!chguest____+
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+  ...One useless man is called a disgrace, two are called a law firm, and  +
+     three or more become a congress....                                   +
+ A new Soviet/American truism - KGB does NOT stand for Kinder Gentler Boys +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Xref: sparky ba.general:3986 misc.kids:24595
From: judy@locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer)
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Date: 28 Sep 92 23:10:38 GMT
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California

In article <540nm5g.mzimmers@netcom.com> mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:
>
>We really have gotten into a screwy situation with liability.  If I
>have a swimming pool in my backyard and a child sneaks in and drowns,
>I'm on the hook.  For as long as I can remember, parents have 
>collectively escheated specific parental responsibilities to other
>institutions:  schools and teachers, the police, the courts, churches, 
>and now to other private citizens.  Small wonder the young people in
>our society are so screwed up.

I don't want to try and discuss the various ways our culture seems to be warped,
though I agree that we have lost the concept of personal responisbility.  
However, as a parent of a toddler and (Santa willing, the future owner of a
pool), I think this does bear discussion.

No matter how vigilant a parent is, there are times when children, because
they are capable of making multiple distractions and also capable of running
VERY fast, can get into hazardous situations.  A pool represents just such
a hazard.  My next door neighbor has a pool.  His yard is fenced.  However,
the latch on the back gate (which is really a front gate, just on the other
side of the garage) does not latch.    While Erin never gets more than a few
yards away from me in the front, she does know how to get through that gate
(which is how I know it won't latch).   

Yes, it is my responsibility to keep a watchful eye out on my child.  But
as a parent, I am very uncomfortable about my next door neighbor's gate not
locking and there being a pool there.  It is "on his list" of things to do
and as a homeowner I certainly understand how long that list can be.  But as
a pool owner, and with a neighborhood as full of kids as ours is, I think 
there is a point at which "on my list" is no longer sufficient and the latch
needs to be repaired.

If you own a pool, you must do all that is within your power to ensure that
that pool cannot be accessed by local kids.  If the child is capable enough
to climb over an 8 foot fence or unlock a padlocked gate, then that child
might be capable of swimming, and would at least be equally negligent.  But
toddlers are fast and if your yard is accessible to the neighborhood toddler,
IMNSHO your yard should be child proof.  And that does not include a swimming
pool.

 
-- 
Judy Leedom Tyrer

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"	- William Blake
Xref: sparky ba.general:4016 misc.kids:24690
From: lauraf@classy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Laura Floom)
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids
Subject: Re: Parental Responsibility  (Was:  Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions)
Date: 30 Sep 92 01:51:42 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA

In article <cq+pb0d.mzimmers@netcom.com> mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.231038.2225660@locus.com> judy@locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer) writes:
>
>>No matter how vigilant a parent is, there are times when children, because
>>they are capable of making multiple distractions and also capable of running
>>VERY fast, can get into hazardous situations.  A pool represents just such
>>a hazard.
>
>First, how does a pool represent a hazard that a child can be exposed
>to by dint of being "very fast"?  It takes several minutes to 
>drown.  If you allow your child out of sight for that period of time
>you are indeed negligent.

Well, it may take several minutes, but once they hit the water they arte going
to quietly sink to the bottom. You may realize your child is missing, but it m
may take more then several minutes to check the neighbors pool, especially if
they found a route you are unaware of.
>
>A more appropo example would be living on a busy street without
>a front-yard fence.  Clearly an immediate danger exists.  But do
>you ask the city to reduce the speed limit to 10 MPH?  Clearly not --

Maybe, but most residental neighborhoods I know do have a reduced speed
limit!`

>ideally you don't live there, but if you must, you make child
>supervision top priority with no exceptions.
>
>From a practical perspective, I agree that your neighbor ought to
>put a latch on his gate.  But I can't go along with holding him
>even slightly responsible for any unfortunate outcomes.

why on earth not? a latch is a simple thing to do! or are you one of those
people who seem to think that if a parent is stupid or negligent or just
unlucky, then the child deserves to pay the price with his/her life?

Not even slightly responsible??????
>-- 

Laura Floom
Xref: sparky ba.general:4059 misc.kids:24805
From: henry@ADS.COM (Henry Mensch)
Subject: Re: stupid consumers
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems; a div of Booz, Allen & Hamilton
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:04:21 GMT

eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello) wrote: 
->Yeah, like I heard that Japanese ONLY fly Japan airlines because 
->(they boast) some wonderful safety record. Fact is, the US airlines
->are (as a whole) much safer on all counts than Japan's airlines. Yet
->the Japanese citizens are hell-bent on using ONLY their airlines.
->It's called "brainwashing".  Now they move the "brainwashing" 
->to rthe US.

honey, your rant is tired.  

the japanese airlines cater better to japanese needs than us airlines
do ... it's only recently that passengers could routinely get a
non-western meal (without making a special request) on many usan
airlines.  whether or not japanese airlines are  safer is hard to tell
without hard data (do you have such data?  if so, then put up or shut
up.)

->I couldn't say for sure, but this is MOST likely due to EPA regs. 
->They probably spew out garbage that our environment doesn't need-
->Japan is less concerned about the environment than we are.

how do you know this?  substantiate your statements.

->But do you work for one of these monsters?  Give up your job and go 
->work for a "perfect corporation" in Japan.

he didn't say that working for a japanese company would be better; he
identified the primary problem with the quality of products produced
in the us.

--
# henry mensch / booz, allen & hamilton, inc.  / <henry@ads.com>
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 19:23:55 GMT

In article <540nm5g.mzimmers@netcom.com> mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:
>I'd also like to think
>that in the few years since that incident, people have become a little
>more intolerant of negligent parents.

That's not my impression. One father strapped his baby into a car seat,
put the car seat and baby ON TOP of the car, and drove off. Car seat
met concrete a few blocks later. Everyone was just relieved that the
baby was not injured and the father faced no consequences from the
authorities (except the big boss, of course).


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

Newsgroups: ba.general
From: mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang)
Subject: Re: Fry's -- Yet Another Bad Experience
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:57:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.152847.2830@ultra.com> wayne@ultra.com (Wayne Hathaway) writes:
>As the originator of this latest Fry's thread, I should report the
>following.
>
>First, they know they have a problem speeding people through the
>layers of paperwork involved in an exchange; that's obvious to anyone.
>His explanation for the layers of checking and approving were "to
>protect the customer from receiving the wrong merchandise," rather
>than the anti-shoplifting bent that I would have expected.  (This
>matches up with another poster's comment that they seem to be more
>worried about the honesty and competence of their own people than they
>do about customers stealing stuff.)

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.

-- 
Michael Wang
mmwang@mv.us.adobe.com
Xref: sparky ba.general:4135 misc.kids:24994 misc.legal:17995
From: leadfoot@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Mark Curtis)
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Date: 3 Oct 92 02:20:38 GMT
Followup-To: ba.general

In article <183749@pyramid.pyramid.com>, lstowell@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) writes:
|> >>>Exactly to whom is it the worth the cost of a fence to put the
|> >>>fence around Mr. Sohl's swimming pool?  Let that person speak up.
|> >>>
|> >lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) writes:
|> >>   ME, if it's my pool.
|> >
|> In article <1aimfrINNt3g@smaug.West.Sun.COM> dab@ism.isc.com (Dave Butterfield) writes:
|> >Unless your pool and Mr. Sohl's pool are one and the same, you
|> >have not answered the question.
|> >
|>    Well, if MY 4 year old were to drown in HIS pool, you can believe
|>    your bippie that his wallet (plus any applicable criminal
|>    charges) would MUCH rather pay for the !@#$!@# fence if he ever
|>    gets out of jail or the poorhouse.  
|> 
|>    In other words if he is too stupid or uncaring to adequately
|>    secure a pool in California, the first youngster injured in the
|>    thing would rapidly result in his becoming very painfully aware
|>    of civil liability and case law in this state.

This state's laws are so screwed up it isn't funny.
   
|> 
|>    My original posting meant that I would feel morally obligated to
|>    protect the community of children from my attractive nuisance if
|>    it were my pool--whether or NOT it also happens to be the law.  
|> 
|>    Does THAT answer your stupid question?

At least you get the choice.  If it is worth it to you fine, but you're
biased you're also on the cover MY child side.  The big thing is that it
is a choice.

What would your four year old be doing in his pool?  Maybe your neighbor
is Mr. Roberts?  Maybe if the pool owner calls the police and files
charges everytime children invade the yard their parents will make sure
it doesn't happen.  Otherwise many couldn't care less, they're banking
on his pool fence.  If he doesn't have a pool they wouldn't care what
their children did over in his yard.  Many just don't care!
Xref: sparky ba.general:4202 misc.kids:25228 misc.legal:18130
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Date: 6 Oct 92 01:36:08 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <1992Oct5.160210.18021@netcom.com> mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:
>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.  

And what about the parents who do their best and still feel that
an unsecured pool is an unacceptable hazard? Should we deny them
the protection of the A.N. laws because some or even many parents
are irresponsible?

>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

I don't see how you come to label me like this because I think an
unfenced pool is unacceptable.

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

I think it's different.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Happy owner of a new Mitsubishi Expo.
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:02:32 GMT

In article <6869@transfer.stratus.com> leadfoot@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Mark Curtis) writes:
>>If you own a pool, you must do all that is within your power to ensure that
>>that pool cannot be accessed by local kids.
>
>Why?  I didn't put the pool on public property.

Because children (by definition) can not be held fully responsible for
the consequences of their actions and a pool is an attractive nuisance.
There have been people who suggest keeping the kids at home, building
fences to keep them locked up, etc. That is reasonable for infants
and toddlers, but once in the age range of perhaps 8-16, they need
to be allowed to go out, see their friends, etc.

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

Xref: sparky ba.general:4175 misc.kids:25146 misc.legal:18083
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:38:02 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Oct5.154955.16822@netcom.com> mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:
> ...
>When you start using words like "reasonable," "practical," or
>"effective" you are bringing YOUR personal opinions into the picture.
>Your opinions are great as conversation fodder but terrible as a
>basis for law.
> ...

  I thought that "reasonable" *was* a principle of law - as in
deciding if one took the precautions which a "reasonable person"
would have taken.

--henry schaffer  n c state univ
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.jobs.misc
From: yoda@leland.Stanford.EDU (Ernest Hua)
Subject: Need attorney specializing in wrongful discharge
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 21:31:26 GMT

A friend wants to know about local firms with specialists in employee wrongful
discharge.  Obviously, it would not be wise for me to mention his name so
please forward the information to me, and I will pass it on.

Ern (yoda@leland.stanford.edu)
Xref: sparky ba.general:4065 misc.kids:24824 misc.legal:17923
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Date: 1 Oct 92 17:14:36 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

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?

>The first thing you have to understand is that not everyone feels as you
>do about this by definition bit.  You have stated that by definition
>children are never responsible for their actions and lack of judgement.

No, I said they are not fully responsible. Certainly not to the extent
that the death penalty is appropriate.

>Just don't try to
>force me to be responsible for your children without having any rights
>to control their behavior.  

I think you've invented this strawman of "having no rights to control
their behavior." I certainly think it's appropriate, if you catch
a child trespassing, to "arrest" them and bring them to their parents
and demand that such activities cease.

>Failing to control and educate your children is failure plain and
>simple.  Cutting them loose in public places to run wild and annoy
>people is a failure to properly educate and control your children.

Would you feel better if I said I agree? Now can we get back to
the subject?

>Failure to teach them the value in staying off private property is a
>major failure.  If they do these things you have failed.  Face up to

Yes, it is a failure. But I think the death penalty is too strong.

>If you can't control or trust your children then maybe you need to
>change your parenting habits.  Either that or put up a fence to keep
>them in an area you can control.  Changing what you are teaching them
>is much wiser and effective.

Children are not animals to be kept in a cage all their life.
There are very few parents that have full control over their
children in the face of an unsecured attractive nuisance.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Happy owner of a new Mitsubishi Expo.
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids