HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dxf12@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas Fowler)
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Re: What is a spanking
Date: 13 Nov 1992 08:34:12 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dxf12@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas Fowler)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, petel@sequent.com (Pete Lancashire) says:

>dxf12@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas Fowler) writes:
>
>
>Plese don't take this a flame, 
>
>>seconds of pain (maybe kids 5 and up can take more like 30 seconds without
>>being too traumatized), but doesn't bruise, it's a licking.  Anything that
>>causes bruises or worse is a beating.  How is that for appropriate
>>network terminology?
>
>Be careful, just because there is no 'bruise' it does not mean that the
>child is not 'too traumatize', the boy I have been helping went through
>'spanking' between 8 and 10 where the step-father has admitted to me that
>he had to stop because his hand, wrist and arm hurt to much.(the step
>father not the kid), the goal of the man was to get the boy to 'cry' or
>admit to what he had done wrong, The boy showed no sign of being
>'tramatized' or any sign of pain, no bruises. Again this is not what
>Doug is promoting, but take care on defining what can cause trama,
>or pain. Even younger children 'can take it' if they want to 'prove
>a point'.

    Sorry if I was incoherent - what I meant was 30 seconds OF SORENESS.
Going off and hitting a kid for 30 seconds is child abuse.
     I agree that different levels can be traumatic to different
kids, even without bruising.  To qualify, the 30 seconds or so of soreness
(which, of course, must be accompanied by love) is a sort of maximum
limit, I would think.  Even if it's more like a minute, I'm just saying that
for purposes of these conversations, to avoid confusion, we should use
some sort of general standard to define the terms.  Oh, yes, a licking
can be traumatic - I think that's why I separate that from a spanking to
begin with.
     In fact, I'll go you 1 further - I was so sensitive that even
what I've stated could be termed a spanking - 1 swat with a maximum 2-3
seconds of sting/soreness - would almost certainly have been traumatic
for me.  It definitely would have done me more harm than good.  Some
people are just like that. (How do I know?  I was bugged a lot when
my cousin Matthew would hit me playfully - and all that hurt was my
feelings.)
-- 
Doug Fowler: dxf12@po.CWRU.edu  : Me, age 4 & now: "Mommys and Daddys & other
   "Thou shalt love God with all: relatives have to give lots of hugs & love
thy heart...*and thy neighbor as: & support, 'cause Heaven is just a great
thyself*." Luke 10:27           : big hug that lasts forever and ever!!!"
Organization: Student Employment Office, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 12:23:21 -0500 
From: Judi Mancuso <jm5p+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: a new fun thread??
	<1992Nov9.210556.10721@cbnewse.cb.att.com>

> 
>Well I've had the misfortune to be asked (on several occasions),
>"When is the baby due?" -- and the baby was already born.
>-- 
>Diane Pedersen
>AT&T Bell Laboratories
>Naperville, Illinois

Thank you Diane!  I don't know how old your child is---but I have a 17
month old and that is even worse!  In fact, the other day I caught
myself lying to save the person's embarrassment (and at times I have
been known to be downright nasty--which is not fair!)--"next month"
(thinking "don't I look tiny for being 8 months pregnant?").  Well, I am
at least working on looking non-pregnant!  Not so easy after C-section
#2 over the age of 30some and gaining well over 75 lbs. with each (YES!
OVER 75!)  Even though I only have another 35 (ONLY!) to get down to
normal weight---I guess all these oversized clothes don't help either. 
I am hoping to think up a really great response---any ideas?   Judi
From: dlin@weber.ucsd.edu (Diane Lin)
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Re: 20/20 and Spanking
Date: 5 Nov 92 01:36:34 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego
NNTP-Posting-Host: weber.ucsd.edu

In article <25822@optima.cs.arizona.edu> shack@cs.arizona.edu (David Shackelford) writes:
>In article <1d8sn4INN9kc@network.ucsd.edu> dlin@weber.ucsd.edu (Diane Lin) writes:
>>In article <25769@optima.cs.arizona.edu> shack@cs.arizona.edu (David Shackelford) writes:
>>
> >>But disobediance might imply a threat to life.  If I catch a 7 YO
>								^^^
> >>playing with matches, he's going to get spanked.
> >
> >Another of the old "ends justifies the means" logic at work.  Did it
> >ever occur to you that matches and knives and other dangerous
> >objects should not be within a child's access?
>
>Please enlighten me on how I'm supposed to childproof against a 7 YO??
>
Seven year olds are old enough to understand the danger of matches,
so I would hope that their parents or other responsible adults have
taught them that lesson.  As other people have suggested in
misc.kids before, a trip to the local fire station is a great
education, and usually a fascinating, and fun, experience for the
kdis.  Before a child is able to understand the dangers involved
with matches, knives, etc., though, it is the parent's
responsibility to keep such hazardous materials away from him or
her, and to supervise the child at all times.  IMHO, of course.

-- 
Diane C. Lin			"Live now; make *now* always the
dlin@weber.ucsd.edu	         most precious time.  Now will 
(Dylan's mom, 23 months)	 never come again." (ST:TNG)
From: kperdue@hpsmtc1.cup.hp.com (Karla Perdue)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:55:03 GMT
Subject: Re: Loving the disobedient was (Re: 20/20 and Spanking)
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino
From: judy@locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer)
Subject: Examples for discussion (was Re: Plain Talk About Spanking (long))
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1992 23:52:28 GMT

I've gotten several replies asking that I share the information from our
Parenting class.  Here's three scenarios.  The object is to think up
logical consequences for the behavior of the child.  The important ingredient
to logical consequences is that you must be just as content to allow the
consequences to happen as the behavior.  The idea is instilling in your
children the ability to learn to choose appropriate behavior.  

----

"You tell your 6 YO that you need to vacuum the floor and he needs to pick
up his toys.  An hour later and the toys are not picked up."

I particularly liked this one because one of the obvious answers (vacuum up
the toys) won't work for me.  You see, I really care about my kids toys.  I
like to find all the little pieces to a toy and make sure that they are all
there (or search the house and yard for them).  So I would not be just as
content to allow the consequences to happen.  I would be really upset if I
vacuumed up or threw away my kids toys.  I would not allow him the 
responsibility if that were the consequence.

-----
And here's one from one of the class members himself:

"Your 4 year old forgets to flush the toilet.  This is one of your pet
peeves and you really cannot allow it to continue."

The second sentence here was important because my 4 YO forgets to flush
the toilet and it really doesn't bother me, I just flush it myself. But
this father just cannot stand it when his daughter forgets.  And, parents
have rights in their own homes.

-----
"Your 15 year old is supposed to be home at 8 PM.  It is now 10 PM and 
and your child comes sauntering into the house."

This was at the end of the sheet and we didn't get a chance to talk about
it yet.  Ideas?
-- 
Judy Leedom Tyrer

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"	- William Blake
Newsgroups: misc.kids
From: owens@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Christopher Owens)
Subject: Re: Diapers and the Environment (Was Re: Diaper Services)
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:17:13 GMT

In <9NOV199214061524@trentu.ca> bwolfe@trentu.ca (BEN WOLFE) writes:



> The debate now centres on a type of environmental study called life
> cycle analysis, in which all impacts of a product from extraction
> through use and disposal are quantified.

Even if you invalidate a great deal of the life cycle analysis, the
finding that disposable diapers constitute 0.5 to 2 percent of the
solid waste stream (compared with 40% for newspapers) remains, in my
mind, a compelling argument for the position that the relative
environmental impact of disposables versus cloth diapers is not as
clear-cut as some would claim.

> Raising the issue of sewage as an environmental impact of cloth
> diapering is pretty ludicrous as far as I'm concerned. First of all,
> disposables are supposed to be rinsed in the toilet

People aren't talking about the sewage from rinsing the diapers in the
toilet, they're talking about the sewage generated by washing
machines, either at home or at the diaper service plant.

> People, North America throws out about 20 *billion* soiled
> disposable diapers a year. 

Right, and that figure, while staggering, appears to be insignificant
relative to the volume of newsprint going into landfills.

> [...] two dozen generations in the future, the disposable diapers we
> threw away in 1992 after reading corporate misinformation will still
> be sitting in landfill sites.

So will the newspapers we threw away.  So will the banana peels we
threw away.  In a modern, properly run landfill, *nothing decomposes*.
Diapers are a part of the problem, but not, apparently, a big one.

> I think there are a lot of good reasons that diapers have become a 
> symbolic environmental issue. As parents of young children (and yes, I
> have one in diapers and one recently out of them) we have the responsi-
> bility for preparing the future they will live in. Does it really make
> any sense to you to take a space-age product that will last for five
> centuries and wrap it around your child's waist for a few hours, and then
> toss it away, soiled, for someone in some other place or time to
> deal with? 

I agree that it is a powerful symbolic issue.  As to whether tossing
disposables makes sense relative, say, to stripping the Rocky
Mountains of water, shipping it 1000 miles to an area that would
otherwise be a desert (Los Angeles), and then squandering that
precious water to wash diapers, I honestly don't know.



Newsgroups: misc.kids
From: elise@ticipa.pac.sc.ti.com (Elise Wade)
Subject: Re: 20/20 and Spanking
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 20:28:35 GMT

In article <1drsqbINNo3l@gap.caltech.edu> floom@cco.caltech.edu (Laura E. Floom) writes:
>judy@locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Nov10.001634.8940@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> lauraf@classy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Laura Floom) writes:
>>>
>
>>Gee, I hope we treat our children better than we treat each other.
>
>Cheap shot, Judy.
>
>Laura Floom

You know, over the time I have followed this group, I have enjoyed
posts from both Laura & Judy.  I actually hope to meet them both
some day -- just not at the same time. :) :)
Elise.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: jdf@intcorp.mn.org (Joel D. Flatt)
Subject: Re: Censoring information , Is it possible tomorrow?
Organization: Introl Corporation
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 15:12:55 GMT

ruman@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (ruman) writes:
> 
> Would it be possible, and will it be constitutional to pass a law
> barring any network from disseminating information regarding the 
> polls until polling closes on the West coast. Could it be argued


What about Hawaii and Alaska?  How about not counting ANY ballots until 
the day after the election?  
-- 
Joel D. Flatt                             Voice - (612)788-9391
Introl Corporation                        FAX   - (612)788-9387 
2817 Anthony Lane South                   Business email - jdf@intcorp.mn.org
Minneapolis, MN  55418-3254               Personal email - jdf@starfire.mn.org
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: jdavis@ssf-sys.DHL.COM (Jim Davis)
Subject: reference needed
Organization: DHL Systems, Inc.
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1992 22:10:57 GMT

Anyone have suggestions for an attorney specializing in employer/
employee relations?
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Hearsay (was: Harvard )
Date: 11 Nov 92 00:04:27 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <69194@cup.portal.com>, edwardk@cup.portal.com (edward chungfan 
kwok) writes:
> I bet it falls under some exception to the hearsay rule, I heard him say it
> myself.

The fact that the witness personally heard the statement to which he's 
testifying isn't in it self a hearsay exception.  Rather, it's the classic 
example of hearsay.

"I heard him say that Hrvard is not a good school".  Hearsay; it's a 
statement made by a declarant other than the witness to prove the truth of 
the matter asserted (close paraphrase of the federal rule, which I don't have 
handy to cite accurately).

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Mmmm... Purple)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: why so much to imprison someone?
Date: 5 Nov 92 04:03:20 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <14250014@hpmwmat.sr.hp.com> mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell) writes:
>	I'm beginning to think in terms of "compressed sentences" in
>	prison terms...  not "shortened"... but "compressed".
>
>	Serve the full term in less time....
>
>	At .25 the current cost.
>
>	Make prisons half their normal size (or double occupancy) to
>	get twice the utility of the facility.  Remove most or all
>	of the bennies... no tv, phone, rec. center, weight room, etc.
>	Half the current time out of the cell, half the space to move
>	around in...  cut all services in half...

Do you have a breakdown to show that this is 75% of the cost?
There's food, guard services (the cost of which will need to increase
when you cut off any letting off of steam by the inmates), heating (or
is that just a luxury also?).

For that matter, have you *seen* the current cells (many of which
are already overcrowded?)  Heck, you might as well line everybody up
against the wall and shoot them with this sort of attitude -- (1)
save even more money, (2) you won't risk any guards' lives, because
*I* certainly wouldn't want to be a guard in a prison where each
prisoner has ten cubic feet of space without any recreation, and
(3) with this kind of prison, the inmates are just going to kill
each other in the inevitable riots anyway.

Alas, there's the nasty interference of the Eighth Amendment getting
in the way of both of our plans...

I suspect the people who think inmates' lives are too cushy have never
had any experience with a prison at all from the inside or the outside.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: larry@world.std.com (Larry Appleman)
Subject: Re: rights of survivorship and joint proerty in Ma
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:20:45 GMT

tlindgre@cvbnet.prime.com (Terence Lindgren) writes:
>  I would like to know if A and B have a joint bank account with right of 
>  survivorship, A dies , is B's spouse entitled to half of the acct in MA?

In Massachusetts, each spouse owns his or her own individual property
separately (unlike in "community property" states, where spouses share
ownership).  So in this question, before A's death B has joint ownership with
A of the bank account, and after A's death B has full ownership of the bank
account -- and B's spouse doesn't enter the picture.

Of course, if B dies or if the Bs get a divorce, the answer would change.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Larry Appleman                            60 Otis St., Cambridge, Mass. 02140

Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: jurisdiction argument
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 11:47:57 GMT

andersom@spot.Colorado.EDU (Marc Anderson) writes:
>I'm unsure if this has been discussed on the net before (if it is, and anyone
>Essentially, what it boils down to, is that for most Americans, it cannot
>be proved that the Constitution has jurisdiction over them.  One can, thus,
>challenge the judge/prosecutor to produce evidence to produce evidence that
>the Constitution has jurisdiction over him, and -- supposedly, EVERY TIME
>this defense has been applied, the court backed down and dropped all charges.

Yeah, post the references.  This could be amusing.
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Ct. Insurance non-ruling
Date: 11 Nov 92 00:18:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: murdoch.1992Nov11.001835.20528
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Nov10.214019.29062@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
ddaye@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (David C Daye) writes: 
#Yesterday the Supreme Ct. refused to hear a case in which an employer had
#changed health insurance plans after an employee had begun submitting
#claims for treatment of AIDS.
#
#Does anyone wish to comment on what we're missing in all this? 

Welcome to 24 years of Republicans appointing Supreme Court Justices. 


--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
From: gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. Kennedy)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: What happens to?
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 92 19:59:47 CST
Organization: Ham Radio Operator, Houston Tex.

tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:

> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
> >If by your question you meant "Is the power to launch nuclear missiles
> >removed from a losing incumbent President due to the fear that he
> >might decide to blow up the world in a fit of pique?" the answer, as
> >far as I know, is no.
> 
> However, supposedly some people do worry about this: during Nixon's last
> days, allegedly the Secretary of Defense or some other high official
> quietly told all the people in charge of nukes to run any "unusual"
> orders by him for confirmation before carrying them out.

 Interesting point. In fact, Nixon left Washington several hours 
before Ford was sworn in, and the "codes" or "football" didn't go 
with him on Air Force 1. In his book, (named "Air Force 1) Nixon's 
pilot mentions this and also the fact that Nixon himself thought 
that the codes were aboard, when in fact they weren't. So far as I 
know though, this is the only time since the "football" came into 
existance that it was not in the company of the President.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Gene Kennedy - Ham Radio Operator, N5ABI - 
                      gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
        Bismark's law: The less people know about how sauasges
         and laws are made, the better they'll sleep at night
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: 4 Q's: Deadly Self-Defense Against Rape
Summary: Killing OK to defend one's virtue.
Keywords: Why, sure!  I have five dollars for each of you . . .
Date: 12 Nov 92 13:56:18 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <13148@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) 
writes:

>Even before AIDS, California law allowed deadly force to be used to
>prevent rape, because it was a common law felony, and usually 
>considered "great bodily harm."  [Clayton Cramer]

The question before the jury trying Bernhard Goetz for using deadly
force against four young men, one of whom was holding a screwdriver
when he approached Mr. Goetz on the subway and asked for five dollars,
was whether Mr. Goetz had a reasonable fear of bodily harm when he
started shooting.  The jury decided that he had such a reasonable
fear, and on that basis acquitted him of every charge except carrying
a handgun without a permit.

If a man who thinks he'll be harmed if he doesn't fork over $5.00
can shoot his would-be robbers, how much more so can a lady use
deadly force when she reasonably believes she'll be harmed if 
she doesn't surrender her virtue?

>We had a liberal on our state
>supreme court named Rose Bird who wrote a decision some years ago
>insisting that rape was not "great bodily harm."  Fortunately, that
>piece of liberal justification for rapists was just overturned
>by California's courts.   [Clayton Cramer]

Fortunately, California *really is* a "People's Republic" in the
best sense of the term -- at least, when it comes to the People's
power to resist judicial tyranny.  That's because even Justices of
the California Supreme Court are subject to recall if the voters
get fed up with their perversions of justice.  And indeed, the
reason Mr. Cramer can use the past tense ("we *had* a liberal . . .")
is that the People of California got fed up with Rose Bird and
a few of her knee-jerk, fuzzy-minded, bleeding-heart liberal
colleagues, and voted to recall them from office.  This, folks,
is democracy in action, where judges are ultimately the servants
of the people rather than their masters.

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: stever@meaddata.com (Steve Rothenberg)
Subject: HELP A FRIEND - PRIVACY
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 13:44:23 GMT
Distribution: usa

A friend of mine is upset about the following situation, and
I was hoping someone could help answer his question.

situation: friend A has friend B who is a car dealer, and therefore
has access to credit reports. Friend B ran a credit check on friend A
even thou friend A did not go to the store to by a car. In other
words, the credit check was ran just for the heck of it. Friend B con
confronted friend A and mentioned that there was some old account or
something that should be closed or taken care of. Friend A is upset
that for no reason, friend B made the inquiry.

I looked up in consumer reports about credit checks, and it did mention

" Under current regulations, anyone with a "legitimate business need" is
allowed to see your  credit report.   That loose definition includes businesses
that want to sell things to you - not just creditors.  A salesperson at a car
dealership may call up your report while you're out in the lot just browsing."

But friend A never went to buy a car. Is this legal? 
can friend A get written confirmation that a credit check was made by friend B?
can be get in trouble for doing this?

if you can cite any cases you are aware of this, or what laws or regulations
there are for or against this, please let me know.

-- 
Steve Rothenberg              GO BROWNS                    FOR SALE: 
Mead Data Central             GO CAVS     _____     __o    '51 BOWMAN MANTLE
stever@meaddata.com           GO INDIANS ----      -\<,    INQUIRE WITHIN
stevermeaddata@uunet.uu.net             -----   ( )/ ( )