HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna)
Subject: Re: Fry's -- Yet Another Bad Experience
Organization: The Original Estrogen-Crazed Lust Bunnies
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 21:50:03 GMT

In article <ldubhfINN3hh@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> wanday@wandaful.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>
>Unfortunately, I think their service has gone downhill.  I remember a year 
>after they first opened, I brought in my computer for service and they were 
>really pleasant and helpful. 

I think it's new-store-itis, and it's not just Fry's.

When the newly-redone Safeway at Miramonte and Cuesta in Mountain View
opened its doors some months back, there was an elaborate emphasis on
service, and store personnel would go out of their way to do almost
anything you wanted and even suggest ways they could help you.  They
had a great opening seafood special:  Dungeness crab for $1.98/lb., 50
cents per pound more if you wanted it cleaned.  I went to the counter
and asked to have one cleaned, and the seafood manager apologized
because it would take ten minutes.  No problem, said I, I'll be back to
pick it up.

Now, when Safeway has crab on special (and it's still 50 cents a pound
more to have it cleaned), I cannot get a cleaned crab.  I have tried
three times, and  I am always told that they are out of their stock of
defrosted crab.  My suspicion is that the seafood people simply don't
want to work that hard (after all, they don't get paid any more for
it).  I have seen other people being told the same thing.  Clearly
there's a demand for it.  Isn't making your customers happy by making
it easy for them to get what they want what service is all about?

Do Safeway and Fry's really think that we're such sheep, that they no
longer have to make an effort after we've been hooked?

Charleen
--
"I assume," said Brian, staring unhappily at the reserve chute's broken rip
cord, its free end flailing at his white knuckles and his body plummeting
to earth, "that they also lied about having a bus at the landing site."
        -- Bob Mooers, Bellingham, Wa., Bulwer-Lytton Contest Entry
Newsgroups: ba.general,ba.music
From: shaun@octel.com (Attacking Deep Structure)
Subject: Re: DJ wanted for Wedding
Organization: Octel Communications Inc., Milpitas Ca.
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:54:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.181111.15357@xstor.com> daniels@xstor.com (Daniel A. Segel) writes:
>My fiancee and I are looking for a DJ for our May 30 wedding in
>Berkeley.
>
>We are in our mid-twenties and former college DJs ourselves.
>
>We like college radio/alternative music, and we'd like to
>have a selection of Motown, R&B, 80's, 70's, 60's, and swing as well.
>
>Any recommendations?

Yeah: "Halber Mensch" by Einstuerzende Neubauten would go nicely during
the march.




-- 
shaun@octel.com  ||  Bass drum goes boom, scares your mom in the bathroom 

"Your cooperation will insure that peace and democracy are restored in the 
near future."
From: mysti@sybase.com (Mysti)
Newsgroups: ba.general
Subject: Re: Attractive Nuisance (was: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions)
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:51:26 GMT
Organization: Sybase, Inc.

In article <7123@transfer.stratus.com> leadfoot@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Mark Curtis) writes:
>
>This is the basic point of all my posts so far.  If you can't see that
>just cutting them loose is neglegent than we will never agree on anything
>further.  

Children do get away from their parents supervision despite the best 
efforts of parents, and regardless of said parents' individual parenting
skills.  Further, it is not practical for many families to even attempt
100% supervision, and further, the courts and cognitive psych types agree
that children can be expected to be unattended from time to time.  What
evidence do you have aside from your own limited experience, and in direct
contradicton of a hundred years' law work and (more or less) scientific
investigation, that :

	>If you think it is OK to just cut them loose you are letting
	>them live on borrowed time.  Some of them will get hurt and it's your
	>fault you didn't watch them.

>I agree that children must leave the nest to do normal daily activities.
>Someone should be with them, that is all I ask.  

Somewhere near half the families in the is country (or maybe it's just 1/3)
have single parents.  How do you propose this 100% supervision occur, even
ignoring for the moment that a whole body of carefully reasoned law and
carefully observed scientific observation contradict you?

>go too.  I remember being on both sides of this one.  I had to walk my
>sisters over to their friends homes many times.  

That means you walked home unattended, doesn't it?

>Normal stuff required
>by responsible parents, maybe you find requiring this unreasonable?

Impractical, and subjecting children to a state of house arrest is
well, yes, unreasonable.


>I wasn't allowed to just wander off the yard without telling my parents.

See other posts re: anecdotal evidence, lack of value of.

>Learning to stay in the yard is easy even as a small child.  


Do you have any authorities to quote, to contradict above mentioned arguers
against you?

>You can teach a dog the limits of the yard very quickly too, 
>it just takes a little
>effort and YOUR TIME.  

And you can put them to sleep if they get out of control....this analogy
is specious.

>If you don't have the time, then maybe you
>shouldn't be in the parent business, or at least hire someone who does.

Well, of course, we all have lots of family around, and big fat incomes
to hire help, don't we?

--
Friends don't let friends vote Republican
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.general
Subject: Re: stupid consumers
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:15:22 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Oct14.231950.28580@oracle.us.oracle.com>, glo@dvlseq.us.oracle.com (George Lo) writes:
> In article <1992Oct9.013759.28170@cascade.Stanford.EDU> king@glacier.Stanford.EDU (Robin King) writes:
> >	But since I HAVEN'T flown any Asian airline, what exactly
> >	is the big difference that would make one send their
> >	dollars to Japan?  What is so great?  I'm interested.
> >
> >	Robin
> 
> From what I have heard since I was born, I couldn't recall any major
> accident with JAL, SIA or Cathay.  But I do remember quite a number
> of UA PanAm accidents.

Remember the JAL flight that crashed near Mt. Fuji?  A 747 that
lost most of its tail, and on the way down, the passengers had
time to write notes before they died?  Several hundred people
died.

I take no position about the relative safety of various airlines,
but I don't see how anyone missed such a heart-rending event.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Lesson learned from Gov. Wilson's signing of AB 2601: if you don't get 
your way, have a riot.  Next time, Gov. Wilson will cower appropriately.
Xref: sparky ba.general:4408 misc.kids:25831 misc.legal:18526
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Attractive Nuisance
Date: 12 Oct 92 14:51:05 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Oct9.172944.5291@adobe.com>, pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) 
writes:
> As for 10-year-olds running around unattended, it seems
> fairly common to me. 

If your parents let you run around unaccompanied in a neighborhood with 
unknown dangers at an age when you were incapable of comprehending them, it 
sounds like they were lax in their parental duties.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: ba.general
From: eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello)
Subject: Re: stupid consumers
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 20:00:36 GMT

>
>|> cite a reference that i can check.  an ISBN or a title/author
>|> combination will do fine.
>

Ever hear of a Card-Catalog?  Or don't they teach that in grammer 
school anymore?  Maybe you were absent that day     :^)


Newsgroups: ba.general
From: brunner@telebit.com (Eric Brunner)
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:27:48 GMT

In article <8101@public.BTR.COM> rah@public.BTR.COM (Richard A Hyde  rah@btr.com) writes:

>I talk to my neighbors all the time?  Don't you?  Don't you work *together*
>to make the neighborhood a safe, comfortable place?  Why not??
>
>Sorry, Phil, this isn't aimed at you personally.. your posting was just
>the last in a long series that triggerd the outburst  :-)

Well Rick, you probably should have aimed at me personally. Keep in mind
that your friendly local property owner may take the position that his/her
use of the property superceedes his/her obligations towards you...

Let me see, a shitload of toxic nuclear dioxin sprinkled on the soil -- that
should do for a fairly hard to apprehend "risk" for the trespassser, ignoring
statutes concerning particular forms of littering, and a bit of decorative
sculpture which looks remarkably like a playground slide. We now add the
random trespass, perhaps by a person incapable of forming intent (I really
liked the smoking infant carried by the dog)... see any liability? Do you
really think you should displace the property owner from the minor expense
of moving every speck of dirt to some salt dome in the south west? 

Oh well, who cares anyway, A.N. is not going to be wished away by some
suburbanites with pools but no fences, though I can see why slash-and-burn
land-use property owners might want to ...
-- 
Eric Brunner Tule Network Services
uucp: uunet!practic!brunner
trying to understand multiprocessing is like having bees live inside your head.

Xref: sparky ba.general:4343 misc.kids:25677 misc.legal:18401
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:39:16 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <1992Oct9.002209.6446@leland.Stanford.EDU> eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello) writes:
>Very Simple: Don't let your kid roam, and play in areas that you
>don't know about. If they wanna explore, go with 'em!

I feel your suggestions are unworkable. Fortunately, the courts
disagree with you.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Happy owner of a new Mitsubishi Expo.
Xref: sparky ba.general:4433 misc.kids:25899 misc.legal:18575
From: rah@public.BTR.COM (Richard A Hyde  rah@btr.com)
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Attractive Nuisance (was: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions)
Date: 13 Oct 92 03:23:05 GMT
Followup-To: ba.general
Organization: BTR Public Access UNIX, MtnView CA. For info contact: info@BTR.COM

In article <1992Oct12.165139.25328@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
|In article <8107@public.BTR.COM> rah@public.BTR.COM (Richard A Hyde  rah@btr.com) writes:
|>If your child dies, being able to sue someone for not building an unclimable
|>fence is small compensation.  *That's* why the responsibility is yours.
|
|I consider this Mr Hyde's own strawman.

What has my father to do with this!?   :-)

|I know I've said numerous times that the purpose of the A.N. laws is to
|encourage property owners to reduce the danger posed by hazards on
|their property. No amount of money can make up for the loss of a child,
|nor is it intended to. 

That's why you cannot rely on A.N. laws.  The law says "you will be
punished if a child drowns in your pool".  Not, " you will be punished
if you do not bring your fence up to specification".  Note that some
municipalities do require that fencing be installed along with a pool, but
the effect of the two laws is quite different. The first law requires
that a child be drowned before it can take effect. :-( 

|
|Furthermore, I have never asked you to build an unclimbable fence, just
|a reasonable one to keep small children out.

Well, yes. "unclimbable" was a bit of hyperbole.  Nonetheless, the fence
required to keep out well behaved children is much lower than the one
required to keep out rowdy, rebellious children.  At what point do I
begin to take more responsibility for your children than you (generic) do? 
|
|Finally, I have never denied primary responsibility for my children.
|An attractive nuisance, by definition, is something that many children
|are unable to resist.

Many? or a few?  Does anyone have an idea how long that turntable was
abandoned before the child was hurt?
   I read of a lawsuit in the paper last week (I know, I know)
where a city? was sucessfully sued for 12 million(?) dollars because
the playground had an asphalt surface, a child fell and was severely
hurt.  Where do we draw the line?

 

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   Richard Hyde  |  RaH@btr.com  |    This space intentionally left blank   |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: ba.general
From: eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello)
Subject: Re: stupid consumers
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 19:09:51 GMT

>
>>>>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,
>
>>>Perhaps, due to the high imbalance of trade, your dollar isn't worth a
>>>damn. 
>
>>But if the dollar weren't worth a damn compared to the yen wouldn't
>>that mean that the prices in Japan were outrageously high for U.S.
>>citizens?
>
>Yes, Marcus, but Eric doesn't think that far ahead.  If he did, this
>entire ridiculous post wouldn't have occurred...

FYI, there are NO US manufacturers of televisions. HEnce, they MOSTLY
come from Japan. Hence, the dollar is buying the "domestic" ones from
there too. It all depends on when you buy.  The ones you buy here were
purchaced months (or longer) ago.

(I'm ignoring your insult. )
From: fkc00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Frank Chui)
Newsgroups: ba.general
Subject: House painter recommendation
Date: 9 Oct 92 03:44:03 GMT
Reply-To: fkc00@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Frank Chui)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA


  I am looking for a house painter, preferably in the Sunnyvale/
San Jose area, for my parents' house. Anyone has good experience
with one please email or post. Thanks in advance!!

-Frank
--
frank chui                             |
fkc00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com              | ... and yes, opinions are mine.
From: fred_s@earwax.pei.com (Fred Scott)
Newsgroups: ba.general
Subject: Re: Threats and Name-calling
Date: 14 Oct 92 23:13:32 GMT
Organization: Protocol Engines Incorporated

In article <1992Oct14.205845.3480@cascade.Stanford.EDU> king@glacier.Stanford.EDU (Robin King) writes:
>
>	YOU haven't come up with any solid references about Japanese
>	airlines being as safe as US ones, yet you "know" they are.  

The trouble is, it's generally accepted that if a person makes an assertion,
it's that person who has to back it up with hard data.  Why should those of
differing opinions be forced to prove the opposite just because someone
happened to make an assertion?

That you happened to see the same article tends to substaniate Eric's
position but it still isn't sufficient.  Both of you may have misread
the meaning of the data - i.e., it may not be saying what you claim
it is.  However, if you can specifically cite WHERE the article is
printed (i.e., a complete reference with the periodical name, date, and
(preferably) page numbers), then you can leave it to the others to go
look them up and find out for themselves what it actually says.  Just
saying "it was printed sometime last Spring in some travel publication"
is thoroughly unfair because it's unspecific.  There may be multiple
articles concerning different aspects of travel safety and the search
would then become open-ended due to the number of travel publications
which may exist.

Fred
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.general
Subject: Re: stupid consumers
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:13:36 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <416@vega.iii.com>, rhockins@enrico.tmc.edu (Russell Hockins) writes:
> In article <12735@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #I'm not upset about the development of new techologies, quite
# #the opposite -- but I fear for the kids who only get taught how
# #to find something with keyword search, and end up in a small
# #town library looking for something.  It's much like the generation
# #of kids growing up who can't tell time on an analog clock.
# #
# #Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
# 
# Well now C C, just FYI and to bring you up to speed on the modern
# technologies,
# 
# I now work for a company that makes the some of the online systems for
# libraries you refer to.  Keywording is just a part of it.  You can look up
# something by :
# 
# Title [ or part there of ]
# Subject
# Author
# ISBN
# ISSN
# Call Number
# OCLC Number
# BarCode [ assigned to the book by the library ]
# Words in the title
# Record Number [ internal to the system ]
# 
# If you can't find it by one of these, then it probably doesn't exist [ in
# the library that is ].

Wrong.  The ONLY practical method of search if you don't know the
author's name, the title of the book, or the ISBN number, is keyword
search.  This is only as good as the list of keywords that were
entered by some fallible human.  Inevitably, that list of keywords
is short and inadequate.

# P.S.
# If you encounter a kid who cannot read an analog clock, do what I did for
# my niece who could not.  I taught her how.  However, this would only be
# possible if *you* can read an analog clock :) .
# 
# | Russell Hockins               |  This civilization is recyclable           |

I'm always impressed with how incredibly impolite and insulting
a lot of people on USENET get.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Lesson learned from Gov. Wilson's signing of AB 2601: if you don't get 
your way, have a riot.  Next time, Gov. Wilson will cower appropriately.
From: pcd@otter.esd.sgi.com (Paul C. David)
Newsgroups: ba.general
Subject: Re: stupid consumers
Date: 10 Oct 92 05:56:28 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <1992Oct9.200822.25150@leland.Stanford.EDU>, eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello) writes:
|> >>>- I think Barbara Bush is a very nice woman and it was nice of
|> >>>  George to have her picture put on the one dollar bill.
|> >>
|> >>	RETRO ALERT!  I thought this kind of shitty attitude toward 
|> >>	women went out in the seventies.  Yet here again is the same
|> >>	old fucked up deal:  A Woman's Value Is Based On Her Looks.
|> >>	
|> >>	Get a clue, ya lame-brain.
|> >>
|> >Now wait a minute, Robin! What makes you insult Paul? Can't you be a
|> >little less emotional? Don't you know how to lead a serious
|> >discussion? Why did you have to include the words "shitty", "fucked
|> >up", "lame-brain"? Do you really think that makes your argument valid?
|> >Do you think people take you more serious if you do that? It seems you
|> >want to make a weak argument stronger.
|> 
|> What I find interesting, marcus, is that you labeled ME a racist
|> for using a simple abbreviation.  Now Robin labels Paul (basically
|> sexist) for commenting on Barbara's looks (as if that's all that matters!)
|> Now YOU complain when someone points out an OBVIOUSLY discriminatory
|> comment?

Actually the only reason I would complain is because Robin labelled
me *just like that* without even knowing how good looking I am.
<sigh>

-- 
Paul C. David 
Applications Consulting, Silicon Graphics Inc. 
pcd@esd.sgi.com 415 / 390-2144
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.legal
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:48:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.184610.6895@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
 
stuff deleted....

>>If a child drowns in a pond or a pool or a cave or a mineshaft... why is
>>to *so important* to assign blame?  Yes it's tragic, yes it's sad. *Yes*
>
>To encourage the owners of unsecured facilities to secure them.
>
>>we should do what we can to avoid it.  However, I personally, believe that
>>our society has far overstepped the bounds of denying personal responsibility.
>
>Children are not responsible. This seems to be a difficult concept for
>many of the participants in this discussion. Maybe you could recall
>your childhood to help you get a grip on this concept.
>
Yes. Absolutely. Children are NOT responsible. However, I would argue
that if children damage someone else's property (for example), then
THEIR PARENTS are responsible. I believe this is a general principle of
law. [but I could be mistaken].

I would argue that if a child drowns in a pool, it is his/her PARENTS
who are responsible, for failing to teach them to respect other people's
property. It is NOT the neighbors responsibility to teach the kids right
from wrong. It is the PARENTS.

I am responsible for the misdeeds of my children. You are responsible
for the misdeeds of yours. (if you have any). The neighbors should NOT
be responsible for my kids misdeeds. Trespassing on their property,
[especially by climbing over a fence] is a misdeed. The neighbors should
not be held responsible if my kid drowns in their pool UNLESS he was invited. 
 
I have no argument for requiring a fence around pools. But I would argue
that the purpose is to prevent accidents, rather than protect against
intentional misdeeds by others.

What bothers me most is that lawsuits have been filed and won after 
a drowning in a pool that WAS properly secured. This is grossly unjust.

Children are NOT responsible. That is why their parents are held responsible
for their actions.

--
Bob Silverman
These are my opinions and not MITRE's.
Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA 01730
"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
From: cdc40@RUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Christopher Clark)
Newsgroups: ba.general
Subject: Re: CompUSA was Fry's -- Yet Another Bad Experience
Date: 14 Oct 92 22:49:20 GMT
Reply-To: cdc40@RUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Christopher Clark)
Distribution: ba
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1bhsaeINNerh@fido.asd.sgi.com> kenj@kambo.wpd.sgi.com (Ken ``Blackfur'' Jones) writes:


>On principle, I refuse to shop at CompUSA.  A few months ago, I saw a
>notice proudly displayed at the entrance to their Santa Clara store
>announcing that they have mandatory random drug testing of their
>employees.
>
>I have no wish to support a store which so blatantly disregards their
>employees' right to privacy and then brags about it to their
>customers.
>
>- Ken

I don't know, I think it is good that they openly display their stand
on an issue so consumers can match their moral viewpoint with the corp.
as they walk in the door.  Then you can use your buying power to voice
your opinion or even write a letter if you feel strongly enough.

Have you ever read the list of questions for applicants to Home Depot
(taped to the desk as you walk in the Lafayette Store left entrance
the last time I checked)

	"Do you like to stay up late and party with your friends after work?"
	etc.

Can't vouch for any other hardware stores.

Chris Clark
cdc40@da.amdahl.com
Xref: sparky ba.general:4253 misc.kids:25350 misc.legal:18200