HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: markr@mot.com (Mark)
Subject: Re: I'm Pro-Male-Choice
Reply-To: markr@mcil.comm.mot.com
Organization: MCIL
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 14:42:29 GMT
Keywords: RU 486; FEMINISMUS DELENDUS EST

In article <1992Jul27.230255.3170@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <18989@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul22.012850.7582@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org 
>>(Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>
>>When RU-486 becomes widely
>>available, he will have the *power* to terminate that pregnancy
>>without her knowledge, and the only argument that he should not
>>have the *right* to do so is based on the idea that the pregnancy
>>is taking place inside her body.  I don't respect that argument.
>
>Mr. Rosenblatt, I think there are other people who could make MUCH better use 
>of all of your critical internal organs than you. Report to an organ-donation 
>center IMMEDIATELY for multiple surgical removal.
>
>What's that? I don't have the right to command that? But, Mr. Rosenblatt, 
>that argument is based on the idea that those organs are contained within 
>_your_ body. I don't respect that argument...

And if you donate a kidney to Mr R and it fails after 9 months, are you
responsible for anything after that ?

Mark
From: peercy@dopey.crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Why did they invent common law marriage?
Date: 28 Jul 1992 02:48:08 -0500
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: dopey.crhc.uiuc.edu
Keywords: common law marriage

grady@cco.caltech.edu (W. Grady Campbell) writes:

| Why is there such a thing as common law marriage?

I think a better question is why there is such a thing as statute
marriage?  "Common law" is the way law used to be, so when matters
of marriage transgressed into the legal realm, whether two persons
were married or not was decided by common law traditions.

In my opinion, there should be no statute marriage.  Who you sleep
with and who raises your children is your business.  If you wish to
file a contract with your attorney, or even with your county clerk,
stating that you are married and the conditions of that marriage,
that's fine.  But state-mandated marriage practice is merely one
more variable through which the state can discriminate against its
residents.

By the way, how old is statute law marriage?  For some reason I think
it only goes back to the mid-19th century in the US.

| Is it helpful today with so many people living together for extended periods?
| i.e., now that people often live together long enough to fall into a common
| law marriage, why should they have to turn married when they could get married
| if they want to?

I'm no legal expert, but I don't think living together a long time
automatically makes a common law marriage.  Methinks the preponderance
of evidence must indicate that the two intend to be together, to the
best of their reckoning, forever.

But I suppose it is true that, in this day and age, determining this
is difficult, which is why

dpollard@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis B Pollard) writes:

| I don't have answers; however, some state have started to abolish common law
| marriage.  E.g., Ohio did so recently.

One more thousand-year common law tradition thrown down the tubes.

Mike Peercy
peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: whg@INEL.GOV (William H. Gray)
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Reply-To: whg@INEL.GOV (William H. Gray)
Organization: Idaho National Engineering Lab
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 15:04:23 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.041905.2844@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
|> ...
|> I'm looking forward to [the] argument that, if you're using
|> rn, and you type 'n' after reading only one screen of [a]
|> posting, you are opposed to freedom of speech ...

E. B. White to an authoress wannabe insisting that he hadn't read her whole manuscript
and therefore couldn't be sure of its unsuitability for publication:

	"Madam,  I do not have to eat an whole egg to know that it is rotten."
========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
Xref: sparky misc.legal:15192 alt.censorship:6487 talk.politics.misc:36629 alt.flame:11526
From: mattb@ctron.com (Matt Brown)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,alt.flame
Subject: Re: killfiles & censorship (Net posturing, in other words)
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:27:01 GMT
Reply-To: mattb@olympus.ctron.com (Matt Brown)
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: Cabletron Systems INc.

In article <1992Jul29.131144.5934@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
(continuing discussion of kill files as a satisfying reaction to net.annoyances)

>This is, however, exactly what William December Starr (whose actions I
>submitted as an example of actions that undercut a professed dedicaiton
>to free speech) did: he announced not only to me but also to the net
>that he was "kill"ing me because he's "had it with" me.

You know, I'd be willing to bet that a good number of these announced killings
never happen.  I'll bet lots are just a way of displaying net disdain in a
public manner, and that the "killer" can't wait to see the reaction as 
supporters and flamers line up on the issue.  I'll bet the lurkers out there
make much more use of kill files than the outspoken do.

Myself, I figure, why miss all the fun.  A nightclub with this many 
interesting people, freaks, and absolute assholes would have a costly cover
charge, a large waiting line, and a 12-drink minimum :-).

Of course, this doesn't include the altruistic public service announcements,
such as the periodic Mutlu kills.  Such are a true gesture of net courtesy.

And if you consider this conventional wisdom and a waste of bandwidth, well
you can just go post a Matt Brown killfile entry for yourself.  So there.

Matt
How the hell does a woman get a nickname like "Tipper" anyway?
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: grady@cco.caltech.edu (W. Grady Campbell)
Subject: Why did they invent common law marriage?
Keywords: common law marriage
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 23:27:12 GMT

Why is there such a thing as common law marriage?

Is it helpful today with so many people living together for extended periods?
i.e., now that people often live together long enough to fall into a common
law marriage, why should they have to turn married when they could get married
if they want to?

                                      Grady

grady@alice.wonderland.caltech.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: 27 Jul 92 06:41:17 GMT
 <1992Jul25.163348.11394@eff.org> 
 <1992Jul27.013644.411@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  
 <1992Jul27.041106.11854@eff.org>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1992Jul27.041106.11854@eff.org>
mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

> I normally don't think even existent ones are important, Joe. But you've
> apparently forgotten what I was replying to. 

Nope.  You are mistaken.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Role of judiciary in Italy (was: assassination/judge)
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 11:20:54 GMT


In article <1992Jul22.740.22526@dosgate>, 
"nigel allen" <nigel.allen@canrem.com> said:

> WASHINGTON, July 21 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Following is a statement of
> FBI Director William S. Sessions on the assassination of Italian
> Judge Paolo Borsellino:

[boilerplate press release deleted]

I've been following the saga of the apparent war between the Mafia and
the state in Italy in the popular press, and I've been unable to
figure out exactly what is meant when the two recent victims are
referred to as "anti-Mafia judges" and the like... does this refer to
the fact that at least one of them (the bomb-under-the-road victim of
about a month ago) had until very recently been a prosecutor rather
than a judge, or is the Italian criminal justice system set up such
that at least some judges are explicitly designated as being
extensions of the law enforcement effort rather than neutral arbiters?

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,alt.flame
From: dfp@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Doug Palmer)
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 04:43:50 GMT

>In article <1992Jul25.180444.14954@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>>First of all, a metaphorical reference to murder is made in the
>>description "kill" file, showing a suppressed rage and desire to "kill"
>>one's opponent when one, like Starr, is bested in argument.  This
>>suppressed rage is confirmed by the intemperate language used by
>>discussants like Starr.  The very title of this thread, "A Modest
>>Request" is an (unconscious?) reference to Jonathan Swift's "Modest
>>Proposal" that the children of the 17th century Irish poor be fed to the
>>English.  Partially Irish, I assure Mr. Starr that he will have to catch
>>me and (non-metaphorically) kill me first.

Rules when using a kill file:

1. You must have a permit before using a kill file. Not having
   a permit is an offence. Kill files may only be used for
   the purposes specified on the permit. You may be challenged
   to produce this permit at any time while a kill file is in
   your possesion.

2. Never point a kill file at anyone.

3. Always treat a kill file as if it was loaded.

4. Store kill files in a lockable, safe place.

5. Keep kill files away from children.

Recommendations:

1. The best kill file for use against rabbits, snakes and
   other small USENET fauna is the lightweight nn kill file.

2. Dangerous animals, such as mutlus, need a heavy bore
   rn kill file. (You may only get one chance, so make it
   count.)

3. In many cases, you do not need a kill file. Instead, call
   an accredited sysop and winge and winge and winge and
   winge and winge and winge and winge ...

					- Dug
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Why did they invent common law marriage?
Date: 28 Jul 92 17:52:48 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <1992Jul28.164610.14102@news.columbia.edu>, gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
> peercy@dopey.crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy) writes:
>>
>>By the way, how old is statute law marriage?  For some reason 
>>I think it only goes back to the mid-19th century in the US.
> 
> Maybe longer, that it was inherited from Britain.  The term "common
> law marriage" is quite common in Canada (often when reporting on court
> cases, crimes, etc. -- papers up north often go into intrusive detail)
> and when talking to people from other British Commonwealth countries,
> they nod to it.  (One couple from New Zealand, married under common
> law there, almost lost their marrieds' apartment at Columbia when they
> were told "there is no such thing" here -- they had to get legally re-
> married under NYS law, and their re-housewarming party served as their
> reception.)  This is the first time that I've read reference to such a
> thing in the U.S.  (I do read the Times every day, but ... (-;)

If they got married in New Zealand, common law or not, the State of
New York would recognize it.  They did the most expedient thing
though.  Columbia needed documentation, and they didn't have it. 
Getting a marriage liscense from NY is easier than trying to work
through the New Zealand embassy or consulate getting the necessary
documentation that Columbia would accept.  === Al Sparks
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: The Nature of War
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 14:21:16 GMT

In article <NELSON.92Jul31005006@cheetah.clarkson.edu> nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes:

>NOT!  (and I think most readers, Ed excepted, know why).

>--
>--russ <nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> I'm proud to be a humble Quaker.
>Peace is not the absence of war.  Peace is the presence of a system for
>resolving conflicts before war becomes necessary.  War never creates peace.

I think you may be over-generalizing here.  As far as I know, after the 
sacking of Carthage, Rome didn't have any more trouble out of them.  Nor 
have I seen a whole lot of action out of Nazi Germany recently.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Legal criticism (was: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: 23 Jul 92 23:24:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <1992Jul23.222845.359@fid.morgan.com>, sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>>(as was Anita Hill.)
> 
> Is there a purpose to bringing up her name?  How destroyed was she?
> Was she murdered?  Imprisoned?  Does she still have a job?  Or did
> people say unnice things about her?

Actually, I think that the whole incident has enchanced her career. 
She's now the darling of the feminist movement.  They'll make sure she
won't starve.  === Al Sparks
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Summary: Only one doctor in all of North Dakota
Keywords: FEMINISMUS DELENDUS EST
Date: 28 Jul 92 12:30:08 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.

In article <712221402@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:

>In article <VIXIE.92Jul26161023@cognition.pa.dec.com> 
>vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:

>>We all have the right to keep our zippers zipped.  If we don't, there
>>are consequences.  The right of the child to be supported supercedes
>.......................................................
>>Both parents had a choice.  Sexual intercourse has well-understood risks.
>>[Paul A. Vixie]

>Please wait till the choice for women will be in a real risk
>and then preach that to soc.women.  [Hillel Gazit]

According to a recent story on National Public Radio, there is now
only one doctor in the entire State of North Dakota who performs
non-therapeutic abortions.  Fewer and fewer doctors in general
are learning how to do this, and fewer of those who are able
are willing.  What happens when that one doctor in North Dakota
retires?  Won't the situation for North Dakotan women be as Mr.
Gazit describes it?  What will they do then?

>I wonder how all these
>"for equality" feminists will feel when they will be treated
>just like men, . . .   [Hillel Gazit]

Does this mean that some of them will have to become parents
against their will?

>. . . and when what they have preached at men for the
>last twenty years will be preached at women...
>
>(I bet that they will shout "sexism!")  [Hillel Gazit]

I don't doubt it for a minute.

					-- Matt Rosenblatt
                                        (matt@amsaa.brl.mil)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
From: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: premature withdrawals
Date: 26 Jul 92 08:42:39 EST
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


Joseph F Baugher, in a message to All on 07-26-92 at 5:26am, said:

JF>|Since I began withdrawing
   |from TIAA/CREF in  1979,  long  before  this  10%  penalty  for  early
   |withdrawal  was  even  a  gleam  in my congresscritter's eye, can this
   |legally be classified by the IRS as a  "premature  distribution"?   If
   |the IRS can really do this, it sounds like an ex post facto law to me.
   |Is the IRS wrong about penalizing my TIAA/CREF "early withdrawal",  or
   |does  the  IRS  get  to  make  up  its  own rules and am I out the ten
   |percent?
   |______________________________________________________________________

               Tax legislation is, believe it or not, exempt from
               the ex post facto law principle, thanks to the
               16th Amendment.  Pay the 10% or roll over to an-
               other qualified vehicle.


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
    
---
  DeLuxe 1.25 #11645  Backup not found. (A)bort, (R)etry, (P)anic?
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Xref: sparky misc.legal:15102 alt.censorship:6445 talk.politics.misc:36486
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Keywords: egnilges
Date: 29 Jul 92 19:11:47 GMT
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac, Vancouver Island, CANADA

In article <1992Jul29.155129.20423@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>it?"  "First, I set up a kill file to exclude Ed Nilges.  Then, I
>excluded all people whose names begin with Ni: they seem to be dweebs,
>like Nilges and Nixon.  Then I added a sophisticated regular expression
>to exclude all Germanic names.  Then I became systems administrator for
>the Electronic Frontier Foundation and decided to make my workgroup
>adhere to my standards.  This was not so much anti-free speech as a
>desire to gain efficiency through consistency.  Then I got elected to
>the House of Representatives...."

"First I unsubscribed to the entire k12 hierarchy.... then I unsubscribed to
the entire alt hierarchy.... then I turned my computer off..."

such horsepucky, Ed.

(Is your TV still off?)
-- 
"November 3, 1943, Code Name: Erntefest, Harvest Festival. Seventeen
thousand Jews, rounded up after the final collapse of the Warsaw Ghetto,
were machine-gunned. The victims were lined up in front of open ditches
which they had dug for their own graves." [Maidanek KL. Sachar]
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.child-support
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: QUESTION: Child-Support Laws in Illinois
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 18:07:51 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.172600.23773@asl.dl.nec.com> murthy@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Vasudev Murthy) writes:
>What are the laws in Illinois concerning when a child can express
>his/her preference in the custody battle? 

It's relevant, but not dispositive.  The standard in Illinois is
the "best interests of the child."  In the case of a 15-year-old,
a preference would be given great weight; in the case of an 11-year-old,
less so.

A list of "relevant factors" can be found at Ill Ann Stat ch 40, $ 602(a).
-- 
                      ....................................
                      ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
                      the university of chicago law school 
                      official member of the cultural elit
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 21:08:34 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.185646.17431@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1992Jul25.180444.14954@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>
>>Using kill files IS a form of censorship.  At the very least, it
>
>Why is it that those who make this bizarre argument--that killfiles are
>a form of censorship--are invariably those who are most likely to be 
>selected for killfiles?

I dunno.  Coupla guesses:


     1.  Those folks have felt the shock and hurt of the metaphorical
         murder of the "kill" file after attempting to join what they
         thought was a dialogue (in this connection, Lyotard defines
         terrorism, in The Postmodern Condition, as dialogue termina-
         tion.)

     2.  Those folks know that free speech is neither the free discourse
         of power (that's French for "shut up the boss is talkin")
         nor the random speech which is ineffectual because it is
         it is equated with all other forms of random speech, but
         instead free speech has much to do with free EXCHANGE of
         views.  Which of course kill files prevent.


Any roads, I distrust (and I've gone on record as distrusting) battlers
for "free speech" who have more apparent care for the free speech of
pornographers and punks in Minnesota than for their own.  So I think
good faith is on display when anyone who's been selected for
metaphorical murder fights for her own free speech.

>
>Probably just coincidence.
>

Could be!



Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,alt.flame
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 15:31:06 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Jul28.143312.21954@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil> perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.221740.8240@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>
>>and surely the satisfaction one takes in a kill file is
>>related to the satisfaction one feels in destructive behavior (there! I
>>showed him, he's in my kill file.)

  I would modify this a bit:  TELLING someone that they're in your kill
  file might produce such emotions, but merely PUTTING them in a 
  kill file is a simple convenience -- no longer having to endure
  some poster's lunatic ravings.   I never tell people when I put
  them in a kill file, why should I waste my time?


---peter
Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.consumers.house
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Burglars and dogs and snakes, oh my!
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 14:07:51 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.022057.2419@megatek.uucp> cjp@megatek.uucp (Chris "Systems Stud" Pikus) writes:
>macrakis@osf.org (Stavros Macrakis) writes:
>> I'm horrified.
>> You apparently value your precious property rights more than human
>> life.  No civilized state or country imposes capital punishment for
>> burglary, yet you arrogate the right to yourself.
>> Or maybe it's not even property rights.  Maybe it's simple macho.
>> It's just not macho to run out the back door and call the cops.
>>
>	Before too may people get on the bandwagon and flame him [like me],
>just remember the poor guy is from the Peoples Republik of Massachusetts.
>
>	Follow ups to misc.legal

Hey, we don't want it either.  Take it to t.p.guns.  And take Derek Abbott
with you.
-- 
                      ....................................
                      ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
                      the university of chicago law school 
                      official member of the cultural elit
Xref: sparky misc.legal:14721 rec.nude:3510 soc.women:14026