Conference back40::soapbox

    They're sort of both right.  The police should issue a warning that a
    serial criminal is operating in a certain area; it's a matter of public
    safety.  But this warning should not in anyway constitute a transfer of
    responsibility.  There is no law that says "It's illegal to hurt
    someone, unless they happen to be out alone after dark."

    It isn't sexist to allow the public to know that there is a 
    particular nutcase on the loose whose particular interest is
    murdering women.  No victim blaming here, just plain courtsey
    of sharing knowledge with the community.
    
    There is an issue with men/women/violence; I don't happen to
    believe that the police's reaction is connected to the problem.

    What they really should do, is state the MO and then caution men from 
    walking around the city at night. 
    
    Glenn

    Warn 'em both -- that sounds fair.

    If someone was a serial killer and this person's MO was to strangle and
    dump the bodies of albino females, wouldn't it be fair to warn albino
    females to be careful? I don't think it has anything to do with sexism,
    it has to do the the killer's method of operation.

    Glenn

    Do the Toronto Police have evidence that the murderer is a man?

    
    .6:
    
    No..only the statistical likelyhood that the perp is male. They have
    requested assistance from the FBI to compile a profile of the perp.
    
    At least one of the victims was a prostitute.
    

    Hate to see this happening in Toronto. It's such a cool city... I hope
    they put an end to it quickly.
    
    -b

    Sooner or later some lady is gonna put some lead between the culprits
    eyes...
    
    Oh wait, you're in Canada.  Oh well.

    I'm happy to say there is much less lead flying around here than in the
    U.S. Hunting season notwithstanding.

    
    
    	sounds like you need some lead with the serial killers about...
    
    

	I think the warning is a good one. This person is strangling women in a
certain area of town. The police are asking women to be careful if they walk
alone at night, or to not walk alone. There is absolutely nothing wrong with
what was said, and it's FAR from being sexist. If the police had beefed up
their patrols but didn't tell anyone for hoping to catch the person off gaurd,
then that might be why they never stated that patrols were beefed up. But then
again, they might not have added patrols....


Glen

	i think Mary Lou has too much time on her hands.

Is Mary Lou planning to walk alone at night in that area to protest?
"Hello Mary Lou, goodbye heart..."

    SUBPAC::SADIN
    
    >>sounds like you need some lead with the serial killers about...
    
    
     Maybe I missed it. Name one serial killer who was killed (or even
    wounded) by a armed person in the US.
    
    							Derek.

    
    
    	99% of criminals shot by civilians don't die. Firearms are used to
    prevent crimes over 2.5million times a year. Civilians justifiably
    shoot 3 times more criminals than police do every year. Civilians shoot
    innocents mistaken for criminals less than cops do.
    
    	So stuff yer logic...
    
    
    jim

    SUBPAC::SADIN
    
     So when the data does not meet with your approval, logic gets stuffed.
    
    
    								Derek.

	no, yer logic just doesn't make sense. I have facts and figures to back
up my logic, not just emotional tripe. Go ahead and prove me wrong....prove that
firearms are used in crimes more than self-defense. I dare ya to try it....


jim

Alabama; convienence store robbery, perp pushed everyone into the freezer
at gun point, customers were convinced he was going to kill them all. Customer 
drew legal .45, end of perp. stopped a serial killer cold(so to speak).

OH! he was only going to be a MASS-MURDERER never-mind,,, 

A question for you.
how many of the perps put down on their first or second attempt by civilians 
would have been serial murderers/rapists? and never got the chance?

Amos

    SUBPAC::SADIN
    
    >>Go ahead and prove me wrong....prove that firearms are used in crimes
    >>more than self-defense.
    
     I will politely point out that your remarks were suggesting that an
    armed populace would help the situation. I will also point out that the
    situation is occuring in Canada. Care to revise you statements about
    how often a gun is used in self defense ? (HINT: In Canada if you
    request a gun permit for the purpose of "self defense" you will be
    refused)
    
     I could care less what Americans do with their guns and gun laws, but
    when an American suggests more guns as a solution to a Canadian
    situation I will point out that we do not feel that more guns are a
    solution for anything. 70% of Canadians feel there is not an acceptable
    reason for owning a hand gun. We are different than you, have a
    different history, and different solutions to similar problems.
    
     I could go on, but perhaps you would rather we agree that in Canada gun
    control is not a debate, it is a fact.  And for those of you who feel
    we are at the mercy of our government, our "kick the bums out" movement
    reduced the governing party to two people. Who needs guns when we have
    the vote.
    
    								Derek.

    Simply put, we're not Canadians. We have a different culture,
    lifestyle, and (obviously) values. 
    
    The point of Canadians can't coming up with a good reason to own
    a firearm is moot. We live under the Constitution of the U.S. and
    believe in it.  Many of us wish not stand idly by and watch the
    erosion of right granted over 200 years ago because some individual
    or group has a different opinion. If the real issues were addressed,
    the problems wouldn't exist (or be minimal might be better to say).
    
    Chip

    
    
    >believe in it.  Many of us wish not stand idly by and watch the
    >erosion of right granted over 200 years ago because some individual
    >or group has a different opinion. If the real issues were addressed,
    
    
    Small nit here. The RKBA was NOT granted to us. That right was only
    acknowledged in writting.
    
    
    ed

    WMOIS::GIROUARD_C
    
    >>The point of Canadians can't coming up with a good reason to own
    >>a firearm is moot.
    
    Not when you consider the point I am discussing is that someone
    suggested that an armed population (in Canada) would help deter the
    alleged serial killer.
    
    
    >>We live under the Constitution of the U.S. 
    
     I'm sure you do, I do not.
    
    							Derek.

                     <<< Note 63.21 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

>Many of us wish not stand idly by and watch the
>    erosion of right granted over 200 years ago

	Nit, the right is not "granted" by the Constitution. It is
	recognized and guarunteed by the Constitution.

Jim

    .23:
    
    We shouldn't have compromised in the Oregon Territory affair,
    apparently.
    
    Dick

    Domestic Violence -- A Federal Case / West
    Virginian charged under new law 
    
    
    Martha Bryson Hodel 
    Huntington, W. Va. 
    
    The bizarre odyssey of Chris and Sonya Bailey began when they were seen
    arguing at a bar near their West Virginia home. 
    
    It ended six days later, when Bailey carried his unconscious wife into
    a hospital emergency room in Corbin, Ky. In between, they apparently
    traveled hundreds of miles through three states. 
    
    Authorities say Sonya Bailey spent at least part of that time locked in
    the trunk of the car. And her body was a veritable road map of abuse --
    myriad wounds, apparently inflicted at different times. 
    
    In May, this atypical case of alleged spousal abuse is scheduled to
    come to trial in an atypical place: federal court. Bailey is the first
    person prosecuted under a new federal law, the Violence Against Women
    Act of 1994. 
    
    The law, part of the omnibus crime bill adopted in August, makes
    crossing a state line to assault a spouse or domestic partner a federal
    crime.
    
    JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE 
    
    ``If you can't prove what happened in a given state, that state's
    criminal jurisdiction stops. When you have no idea where the injuries
    happened, no state may have jurisdiction to prosecute without federal
    law,'' said Victoria Nourse, a professor of criminal law at the
    University of Wisconsin Law School. 
    
    In state court, Bailey would have been charged with malicious wounding,
    a felony which carries a 2- to 10-year sentence in West Virginia. 
    
    The federal law, however, provides for up to 20 years in prison for
    ``permanent disfigurement or life-threatening bodily injury'' to a
    spouse or domestic partner; up to 10 years for ``serious bodily injury
    to (a) spouse or if the offender uses a dangerous weapon''; and up to
    life in prison for the death of a spouse. 
    
    Nourse, who worked on the bill as a member of the Senate Judiciary
    Committee staff, said the law provides protection where state laws may
    fail. 
    
    ``At times, there will be an assault in one state, continuing in
    another state,'' Nourse said. ``Each individual assault may not be
    sufficient for state authorities to get involved, but when you add it
    all up, it's a continuing course of serious activity.'' 
    
    Bailey also is charged with kidnapping his wife, a federal crime which
    carries a possible life sentence. 
    
    RAMBLING JOURNEY
    
    Using credit card receipts and motel registrations, police traced
    Bailey's rambling journey through southern West Virginia, eastern
    Kentucky and Ohio, including stops in Cincinnati and Georgetown, Ky.,
    where people reported seeing Bailey, but not his wife, said state
    police Sergeant L. L. Nelson. 
    
    Bailey has refused to talk to police since his arrest in Kentucky; his
    wife remains in a coma, unable to help in the investigation. 
    
    But at a preliminary hearing, FBI Special Agent Scott Francis said
    friends of Sonya Bailey had said she wanted to end her three- year
    marriage but was afraid of her husband's reaction. 
    
    Francis testified that Bailey sometimes locked both his wife and his
    14-year-old stepdaughter inside their house. 
    
    According to Francis, the daughter told the FBI that in January 1994,
    Bailey forcibly dragged his wife downstairs from the daughter's
    bedroom, where she wanted to spend the night, to their own bedroom.
    Sonya Bailey filed a domestic violence petition after that incident,
    but later dropped it. 
    
    Investigators believe that Sonya Bailey was attacked either late
    November 25 or early November 26 at the couple's St. Albans home, where
    they found a lot of blood at the head of the bed and in the bathroom. 
    
    ``There was enough blood to indicate a fatal blow, but that apparently
    was not the case,'' Nelson said. 
    
    WOUNDS DESCRIBED
    
    Emergency room doctors reported that Sonya Bailey had a large open
    wound on her forehead. She also had two black eyes, signs of rope burns
    on her wrists and ankles and bruises on her neck, chin and forearms.
    The wounds appeared to have occurred at different times. 
    
    ``It was difficult to tell just what happened where,'' said West
    Virginia state police Sergeant J. J. Dean. 
    
    Emergency room doctors in Kentucky said Bailey was calm when he brought
    his wife into the hospital, asking permission to leave to lock his car. 
    
    He told doctors his wife had been unconscious for two days, but offered
    no further explanation. ``He said he didn't know,'' Francis testified. 
    
    Doctors told the FBI that the open wound on her forehead initially was
    treatable. However, she had lost a lot of blood and apparently was
    without oxygen for an extended period of time. 
    
    Investigators speculated that Sonya Bailey spent at least part of the
    time in the car's trunk, where they found blood and scratch marks that
    looked like she tried to pry her way out with a screwdriver or other
    tool. 
    
    Although Bailey has refused to talk, his brother said he could not have
    committed the acts he is charged with. 
    
    ``Chris is not a violent person,'' David Bailey said at his brother's
    hearing. ``I think that all of this simply highlights that nothing good
    happens to someone who goes out and drinks after midnight. Chris
    maintains to this day that when she wakes up, she will clear him.'' 
    
    Published 2/28/95 in San Francisco Chronicle

>>                  -< Pope apologizes to women >-

  whoop-dee-doo.

    
    I'd be more impressed if he said he wanted to be one...
    
    -b

    Sounds like he's read "How to Impress Women" by Alan Alda and
    Phil Donahue.
    
    Sure, blame the men, who's gonna argue with the Pope anyway?
    Yes, it was me who forced July's Playmate of the Month before
    the cameras, I fess up...
    
    Chris

    Lady Di,

    You don't sound particularly impressed,.....

    :-)
    Dan

    Like Constantine before him, John Paul II is becoming quite the "bridge
    builder."

    	re .-1
    
    	Is this bad?  I can't tell what you're trying to say there...

    Constantine was reportedly converted on a bridge and had the nickname 
    "Bridge Builder."  He also tried to be all things to all people.

    	And do you see the Pope doing thwe same thing?

    
    Mike, if you see the Pope as trying to be all things to all people
    instead of consistently turning the Church in a more conservative
    direction, you have even bigger blinders on than I thought.  And
    that is saying a lot.
    

    .35
    
    > Constantine ... had the nickname "Bridge Builder."
    
    Boy, you really *do* need to get out more.  The Pope has for centuries
    been referred to in English as the Pontiff.  This is an Anglicization
    of Pontifex, which was the name given to the priests of the Roman
    religion and adopted by the Catholic Church.  The word Pontifex just
    happens to mean, in unambiguous Latin, BRIDGE BUILDER.

    In being all things to all people, too many compromises are made at the
    expense of God's Word.  Ecumenism is not Biblical.  It was the downfall
    of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, as well as the churches at Pergamos
    and Thyatira.
    
    Mike

       > In being all things to all people, too many compromises are made
       > at the expense of God's Word.  
       
       I wonder if the zombie who supplies Heiser with his curious mix of
       bizarre theories and outright lies would have any luck at parsing
       this sentence.
       
       --Mr Topaz

                                        
    I don't get this "downfall of Greece" crap that's been mentioned in
    several notes.   Greece never had an Empire the likes of Rome, Britain
    or France.  Greece is still and always has been a delightfully
    civilized place to visit.   A stroll through the ruined city of Minos
    at Heraklion followed by mezze at a taberna is my idea of nirvana.
    
    Admittedly, they have some bizzare ideas.  On my last visit a doctor
    actually made a prompt house call on us to fix up a jellyfish sting.
    People wave as you pass and shout yasou or kalimera and are polite,
    honest and attentive in business dealings.  Churches are full and
    well-maintained and the people seem to be genuinely pious most altars
    are surrounded by small articles stamped out of silver and gold that
    people leave there in support of their prayers (The churches are never
    top locked).  There are dozens of wayside shrines where people put
    fresh flowers daily and any hill that overlooks a town is invariably
    topped with a large crucifix.
    
    What exactly have I missed is it in that country that indicates a
    "downfall" of civilization?  The lack of material wealth?  The low
    crime rate and vanishingly small annual murder rate?  The absurd focus
    on family and community?  Pray tell.
    
    Colin

    
    The Electronic Telegraph  Wednesday 12 July 1995  World News

                          

    Airline loses plea against 'plane Janes'

    By Paul Anast in Athens

    OLYMPIC Airways, the Greek national airline, has lost its battle to
    hire only attractive women as air hostesses on local and international
    flights.

    At an appeal hearing which concluded its deliberations late yesterday,
    the state-run Supreme Council on Professional Employment ruled that
    beauty could no longer be the main criterion for employment of women at
    the airline.

    As a result, Olympic Airways was forced immediately to employ 31 out of
    37 women whose job applications had previously been rejected on the
    ground that the girls did not fulfil the height, weight and beauty
    specifications set by the management.

    The management and the professional unions strongly contested the
    Supreme Council's amendment and ultimate decision, arguing that good
    looks on flights were vital for the airline's reputation.

    At yesterday's hearing, Olympic Airways' management claimed that good
    looks and good bodies did not imply sexist discrimination against less
    attractive women or the exhibition of sexuality towards passengers, but
    were required for strictly practical reasons related to in-flight
    travelling needs.

    Asked by the council why they insisted on the air hostesses being tall,
    slim and attractive, the airline's management said that the women had
    to be tall to reach the overhead lockers; slim so that they could
    easily move down the aisles, especially in an emergency; and attractive
    so as to create a more pleasant environment.

                                                

    .41
    
    > Greece never had an Empire the likes of...
    
    Well, I suppose if you're talking about Attica, you're right.  But it's
    generally considered that Alexander the Great, and his father Philip of
    Macedon, created a quite respectable "Greek empire" that stretched all
    the way into Asia and Africa and even touched modern China, and fell
    apart in the hands of the Seleucids.

    Deb,
    
    What do you want to bet that the dudes deciding who was "attractive"
    enough to work for Olympic airlines probably bear a close resemblance
    to Aristotle Onassis?
    
    

They have dead guys picking the babes?

    Gerald,
    
    I know Ari is dead; it's just that he always reminded me of a dog
    that was so ugly it had to sneak up on its water dish.
    

Are you implying Jackie didn't marry him for his looks?

    
    I'm a "Bridge Builder." :>
    
    

    .51
    
    Given your personal, looks more like you're a deconstructionist.

    
    > At an appeal hearing which concluded its deliberations late yesterday,
    
    There is humor in there someplace......
    
    :-)
    Dan

    Is it my imagination,or is there a lot less chat about "all men are 
    rapists and bastards" type stuff just recently ???  The emphasis
    these days seems to be more on saving young cows from being exported,
    and saving trees n`that.
    
    Shame really. I used to enjoy reading all that.
    

    
    ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS AND BASTARDS ! ! ! ! 
    
    There, feel better ?
    
    :-)
    Dan

    Cheers.
    
    That puts me back in my place.
    

    REUTERS Monday November 6 3:53 PM EST

    AMA: Sexual Assault 'Silent Violent Epidemic'

    CHICAGO (Reuter) - Sexual assault and family violence are taking a
    devastating toll on America's physical and emotional well-being, the
    American Medical Association said Monday, releasing guidelines aimed at
    breaking the cycle.

    More than 700,000 women in the United States are sexually assaulted
    each year, one every 45 seconds. It is the most rapidly growing violent
    crime in the country, the nation's leading physicians' organization
    said in a special report.

    ``Sexual assault is a 'silent violent epidemic' growing at an alarming
    rate and traumatizing the women and children of our nation,'' AMA
    President Lonnie Bristow said in a statement.

    ``This crime is shrouded in silence, caused by unfair social myths and
    biases that incriminate victims rather than offenders. These myths push
    victims into the shadows, afraid to step forward and seek help from
    their physicians,'' Bristow said.

    The AMA, which represents about half of all U.S. doctors, urged victims
    to talk to their doctors and called on all physicians to become more
    informed about sexual assault.

    Pamphlets and brochures covering the issue prepared by two
    AMA-sponsored committees will be sent initially to hospital emergency
    rooms, selected primary care physicians and gynecologists, Bristow said
    in an interview.

    The materials will give physicians a format of questions to follow to
    draw out current and past experiences that most people do not want to
    talk about, Bristow said. He noted that surveys show more people are
    comfortable confiding in their doctors than with the police or
    religious figures.

    ``The patient you are seeing today who is suicidal may have the root of
    the problem in a sexual assault years earlier,'' he said. ``Problems
    such as serious depression, or food and eating disorders, or other
    problems such as an obsession with safety or an over-reliance on
    someone else may be a sign of some past violent episode.''

    Treatment options could vary according to the particular case, Bristow
    said, but could include recommendations for counseling or even removal
    from the offending household.

    The group issued two sets of guidelines to the medical community -- one
    for possible victims of recent sexual assault and the other for those
    suffering mental difficulties from a past assault -- to help better
    identify, treat, refer and report cases.

    ``These guidelines will help alert us to the possibility of sexual
    assault not only in patients who are visibly battered but also in the
    woman who becomes panicky during a routine exam or a child who
    withdraws from our touch,'' Dr. Kristi Mulchahey, a delegate to the
    AMA's expert panel on sexual assault from the American College of
    Obstetrics and Gynecology, said in the AMA statement.

    
    
    
    A good friend of mine found an instant cure for sexual assault.  It
    seems that his sister was being manhandled by her husband and one time
    went too far and left some evidence as in bruises, etc.  My buddy went
    over to the guys house, put a loaded revolver to his head and told the
    husband, "Hey man I love you, but if you ever, EVER lay a hand on my
    sister again, I'll blow your F'n brains out."  
    
    The guy hasn't touched her since.
    
    Mike

There doesn't seem to be a "violence against men" topic, so I'll put this
article from today's Boston Globe here.

Woman allegedly assaults estranged husband in Framingham Court

A Framingham woman was charged with assault with intent to murder yesterday
after she allegedly slashed her estranged husband in the face in a second-
floor corridor of the Framingham District Court.

Lt. Richard Teal of the Framingham police said that Deborah Y. Jones got into
an altercation with her husband Carl Jones while she was waiting in the crowded
hallway to be called into court.

She was to testify in a hearing on her complaint of assault and battery that
she had brought against her hesband's girlfriend.

"While they waiting, the husband showed up and words were exchanged and then
she allegedly pulled out a razor-type knife and slashed him in the face three
times," Teal said.

Carl Jones was taken by ambulance to the Framingham Campus of the Metro-West
Medical Center where he was treated and released.

Court officials declined to say how Deborah Jones was able to get a razor
through the metal detector.

    
    
    Sure Gerald... go ahead and try to change the focus of the note...
    
    You got an agenda or something???
    

    ZZ    More than 700,000 women in the United States are sexually assaulted
    ZZ    each year, one every 45 seconds. 
    
    Maybe this will help dispell this cultural lie that there are benefits
    to living together before getting married.  
    
    Not a thumper note, a common sense note.  
    
    -Jack

re .61:

Huh?

    
    .61
    
    'Twas no "lie" in my case, Jack.  Sorry your mileage varied.
    

    Not saying that everybody who lives together gets into violent
    situations.  Only saying that people living together has not helped in
    harmonious relationships overall.
    
    In fact, violence has gone up!

    
    Yeah, and people carrying umbrellas cause it to rain.
    
    Earth to Jack...?
    
    

    
    The propogation of home computers is responsible for the rise in
    domestic violence, Jack.
    

It's actually the Mac vs. PC debate that's responsible.

    I find the ridicule here to be quite amazing.
    
    Mz. Debra, premarital sex erodes the trust factor in a relationship. 
    This has been documented by family psychologists throughout the
    country.  The rain/umbrella example is a faulty comparison to what I
    said.
    
    -Jack

    
    >Mz. Debra, premarital sex erodes the trust factor in a relationship. 
                ----------
    
    	Jack, I think you meant to say "extramarital".
    
    	And if I'm wrong, and you did say what you meant, then I'm sorry
    	to hear that.
    

    
    >...premarital sex erodes the trust factor in a relationship. 
    
    Speak for yourself, Fallacy Boy!
    

    
    	Isn't that "Phallicy boy"?
    

    Shawn, it is premarital sex.  And I'm sorry to hear that too.
    
    Fallacy boy huh?  Consider the statistics my friend.  People who lived
    together before marrying are statistically more likely to end up in
    divorce court.  Maybe my logic is fallable but your display of poo
    pooing it shows you don't want to even consider the possibility. 
    Nobody learns this way Joan!
    
    -Jack

    
    Meatyhon, lack of trust in a relationship does not lead to violence in
    a relationship.  You are off the wall with that one.
    
    

    this could end up in a fisty cuff.

ZZ    Meatyhon, lack of trust in a relationship does not lead to violence
ZZ    in a relationship.  You are off the wall with that one.
    
    Mz. Debra, in an idealistic world, this would be true.  While it isn't
    this way across the board, I believe lack of trust plays a major role
    in abusal violence.
    
    So I wouldn't say I am off the wall.  It would be more like, suggesting
    a plausible trend without necessarily having iron clad facts.
    
    -Jack

    
    Would somebody at MKO please open up Jack's skull and see if there's
    anything in there except for cobwebs?
    
    

    
    .72
        
    >Maybe my logic is fallable...
    
    No maybe about it, Jack; your cause and effect are fallacious.
    
    >...but your display of poo pooing it shows you don't want to even 
    >consider the possibility.  Nobody learns this way Joan!
    
    Sorry, Jack, but I've nothing to learn from fallacious reasoning.
    

    Are any fists involved?

    Hey...whatever. 

    jack's head is full of fellatious reasoning.

    Bonnie, more elitism from you!
    
    Luvs!

    
    ZOOOOOOM!
    

    
    I've always preferred fellatious reasoning myself.
    
    

    
    	Jack, as far as I know, the leading cause of spousal abuse is
    	an abusive spouse.
    

    Shawn:
    
    Your reply is very rudimentary.  That's like saying the leading cause
    of abortion is pregnancy.  

    	Jack is right!  
    
    	Couples who live together before marriage are 50% more likely 
    	to end up divorced if they marry than had they not lived together
    	beforehand.
    
    	AND, partner abuse is significantly higher among non-married
    	couples.  I'll have to look up the exact figures tonight.
    
    	But this only addresses abuse by partners (married or not.)
    
    	I contend that the increase in sexual assault in general is 
    	a function of the sexual immersion this society experiences.
    	The flourishing of pornography is the easy culprit to point
    	to, but I'll be so bold as to suggest that society is also
    	negatively affected by the flood of sexual images in advertising,
    	music, TV, theater, etc.
    
    	Just a few days ago there was a discussion somewhere in soapbox
    	about breast enlargements.  Someone suggested that women are
    	compelled to do it because of the glamourization of large bustlines
    	in magazines and entertainment.  This is just another example of
    	my point.
    
    	Women are seen by society as sex objects, and we are seeing the
    	fallout of it in reports such as the one posted in .57.

    
    	Hmmm, let's see ... perhaps abusive people are more likely to
    	live together than to get married right away?
    
    	If someone is not abusive by nature, they will not become abus-
    	ive because they're not married to the person they're living
    	with.
    
    	If someone is abusive by nature, then they will tend to abuse
    	the one that they're currently living with, married or not.
    
    	This makes way too much sense, and is incredibly simple, so it
    	must be totally wrong.
    

    Shawn:
    
    Of course there are lots of other factors in spousal abuse.  Drug use
    being among the top.
    
    Get back to my original point.  Couples have over the last 25 years
    been more apt to live together and consequently, spousal abuse and
    divorce have also gone up.  Is there a connection?  Well, statistically
    for divorce, yes there is.  For abuse?  Well, abuse is a big reason for
    divorce and mistrust is a big reason for abuse.  
    
    Is the flow of logic fallable?  Maybe, maybe not.  But these
    condecending remarks about me being way out there show a lack of reason
    on the part of others.
    
    -Jack

    
    Jack, please explain how mistrust leads to abuse.
    
    

    
    	"They were drug users, always high or drunk, and they weren't
    	married."
    
    	"Living in sin must have led him to abuse her."
    

    Mz. Debra, that's a no brainer.  If a man thinks there is a chance his
    wife is cheating on him, then giving her a good beating can become a
    sobering reality.  
    
    Extramarital affairs are a big part of our reality Mz. Debra. 
    Therefore, violence perpetuates.  
    
    -Jack

    Debra, if I may, I think it's something like `I don't trust you, and
    I'm going to beat you up now.'

    Correct, and don't believe the naysayers who say it isn't possible.
    
    Shawn, you seem to make light of this.  Cocaine users are amongst those
    who display violence toward their spouse.  This is one reason for
    spousal abuse.

    
    Jack, you're missing this by a mile.  A person who is predisposed to be
    an abuser will abuse his/her spouse for any reason.  Mistrust can be
    this reason.
    
    A person who is not predisposed to be an abuser will NOT abuse his/her
    spouse for any reason.  Mistrust can be this reason.
    
    I am not predisposed to be an abuser.  If I discovered my spouse was
    cheating on me, I wouldn't knock him silly.  It just wouldn't happen.
    
    John Doe is predisposed to be an abuser.  If he discovered his spouse
    had bought the wrong brand of coffee, he would knock her silly.  It
    doesn't matter why.
    
    Am I making myself at all clear?
    
    

    Yes you are.  I didn't consider abuse as a predisposition, and I'm not
    sure I buy it.
    
    It seems to me that it is quite possible; however, I am more apt to
    believe that abuse stems from outside stimulation, i.e. drugs,
    mistrust, etc.  I was correlating the trend of divorce with the trend
    of living together and they both seemed to go up at the same time.
    A major reason for divorce in this country is abuse; therefore, it is
    plausible.
    
    -Jack

    I think abusers should be aborted once tests are conclusive.

     <<< Note 63.94 by POWDML::HANGGELI "Little Chamber of Tootsie Pops" >>>

>    Am I making myself at all clear?
    
	No.  How does all that explain the marked INCREASE in abuse?
    	Are you suggesting that there are now more people predisposed
    	to abuse?  If so, what is causing it?

    It's being reported now, and women are not remaining silent.

    
    	There's a marked increase in the size of the hole in the ozone
    	layer, too, Joe.
    
    	Is this relevant to the discussion?  No.
    
    	Just because abuse is increasing at the same time as spouses
    	living together before marriage, doesn't mean that they are
    	directly related.
    
    	There's a marked increase in web activity lately, so maybe
    	that explains all this abuse.
    

    
    
    So? There is no correlation?
    
    Will there be in 5 or so years with enough statistics???
    
    
      Stay tuned....
    

    All part of the general deterioration of reality.
    
    -Stephen

    This is looney.  The correlation you claim to have noticed has not been
    found by any reputable study of which I've heard, and I've read quite a
    few of them.  For more information, see www.cybergrrl.com/dv/stats.html.
    
    Far more telling is what you people are doing - something that was
    identified as a CAUSE.
    
    .57>  ``This crime is shrouded in silence, caused by unfair social
    myths and biases that incriminate victims rather than offenders. These 
    myths push victims into the shadows, afraid to step forward and seek 
    help from their physicians,'' Bristow said.
    
    You are mythmaking WITHOUT HARD DATA.  Worse, you are blaming the 
    victim who cohabitates for the abuse.  This crime is just as much a
    product of broken homes, neglected or abused children who grow up to be
    abusers themselves, as any other crime is- the studies indicate this-
    while they say nothing about 'trust' or other nebulous unmeasurables.
    Quit your irresponsible mythmaking.
    
    DougO

    DougO:
    
    Would you agree as I originally stated that living together has done
    nada to curb the divorce or abuse rate in this country?
    
    

    
    .97
    
    As Glenn said, people are reporting it more now, and the police are
    being forced to take it seriously.  Or don't you remember the days when
    police didn't want to get involved in "domestic quarrels"?
    
    I don't know if there are more abusers around today, though.  There
    might be.  But I won't agree that living together leads to abuse.
    
    

    Actually, increase in couples living together before marriage is not
    part of the deterioration of reality.
    
    Hole in the ozone layer is.

ZZ     But I won't agree that living together leads to abuse.
    
    Premarital sex leads to an erosion of the trust factor in a
    relationship.  Whether that leads to abuse is debatable.
    
    My whole point in my initial entry was to underscore the point that
    living together HAS NOT deterred divorce or spousal abuse.
    
    -Jack

    
    .106
        
    >Premarital sex leads to an erosion of the trust factor in a
    >relationship.
    
    Jack, no matter how many times you repeat this nonsense, it will
    remain nonsense.
    

    	re hole in the ozone:
    
    	Looks to me like far too many people are willing to stick their
    	heads in holes in the sand.
    
    	Why dismiss "living together" so quickly?

    re: .65
    
    You mean...they don't?  <look of shock>
    
    What about those washing their cars?

    It =may be true for Jack and Joe and a few others that premarital sex
    would erode their trust in a spousal unit.  They may also think that
    living together gives people the impetus to pound on each other.  In my
    experience this hasn't been the case and they are both full of hooey.
    
    I also know spousal abuse didn't just apear in the last 20 years,
    however it is being reported more, and people are no longer trapped in
    abusive relationships with no way to escape.  (Women have the
    opportunity to make enough money to support themselves and not have to
    put up with the bruiser on Saturday nights)  They leave.  Unfortunately
    some neandrathal-types think that their women are possesions and will
    do anything, up to and including murder, to keep their possessions from
    not being theirs.
    
    meg

    |It =may be true for Jack and Joe and a few others that premarital
    |sex would erode their trust in a spousal unit.
    
    and of course, there's something to be said for being insecure
    and inherently suspicious of others' motivations.

    Sticking one's head in the sand might be a better description of older
    attitudes toward keeping up appearances in a context of fewer options
    for women when more were economically dependent on spouses.
    
    -Stephen

    I'm only telling you what the family psychologists are saying...that's
    all.
    
    -Jack

    
    	Jack, I wouldn't doubt that the divorce rate is still climbing
    	[it was 50%+ last I knew].  But is this because more people are
    	living together 1st before mariage?
    
    	Doubtful.  Very doubtful.
    
    	Tell me this ... if all these people who wanted to live toget-
    	her instead decided to get married, wouldn't the divorce rate
    	be even HIGHER now than it already is, since before marriage
    	one or the other would have just moved out?
    
    	So, in effect, the divorce rate isn't lower than it was, but
    	it's lower than it would otherwise be.
    

    
    re: .114
    
    >Doubtful.  Very doubtful.
    
    Shawn...
    
     The statistics show that couples who live together first, then get
    married have a higher divorce rate than those couples who do not (live
    together first).
    
     These are cold, hard facts... They were published in the not too
    distant past (2-3 years ago), and relevant now...
    
    You may deduce what you want from that...
    

    
    >My whole point in my initial entry was to underscore the point that
    >living together HAS NOT deterred divorce or spousal abuse.
    
    	I was referencing this sentence, which doesn't specify divorce of
    	people who lived together 1st.
    

    wait - are we talking about people who have premarital sex or
    people who live together before being married or people who 
    live together and don't get married?  or all of the aforementioned?
      

    
    	And don't forget Jack beating his wife because she slept with
    	his neighbor.
    

 yes

    
    re: .117
    
    There is a correlation between living together before marriage and the
    divorce rate (see my last reply)
    
    There is not (as yet) any correlation between living together sans
    marriage and any sort of increase in abuse in these homes.. contrary to
    what Jack Martin states. 
    
     If statistics are kept on this in the future, there might then be some
    sort of correlation (as I suspect there will be, but it's just pure
    speculation on my part).

    
    	You wouldn't happen to remember the actual %, would you?
    
    	Do 52% of marriages that start with people living together 1st
    	end in divorce?  Or is it 90%?
    

    
    
    No... sorry I don't Shawn, although I do recall it being sixty mumble
    something....
    

    
    Is it *possible*, just somewhere out there in the wildest reaches, 
    that the fact that people lived together before they got married was
    NOT the factor that contributed to their divorce?  Is it possible
    that the exact same couple, had they been forbidden to live together
    prior to marriage, might still have ended up divorced?
    

	just trying to figure out what Jack's talking about. 8-|
	first, he was talking about premarital sex leading to
	mistrust and therefore to abuse.  one might assume that
	some people who get married without having lived together
	have premarital sex (it could happen).
    

    
    	Joan, it's only possible if that scenario fits a specific per-
    	son's cause.  Apparently, it doesn't seem to fit here, there-
    	fore it's not possible.
    
    	And upon further consideration [I talk to myself alot], although
    	I will agree that the divorce rate might be higher among people
    	who lived together before marriage, that the overall divorce rate
    	would be even higher now had they NOT lived together and gotten
    	divorces.
    
    	At least living together gives people a chance to see what the
    	spouse is like every day, and get the heck out of there before
    	any "permanent" damage is done, like marriage.
    
    	Therefore, IMO, living together is actually reducing the over-
    	all divorce rate.
    

    Di:
    
    The context of my remarks were regarding individuals who live together
    and have sex with one another; as if married.
    
    -Jack

    
    	You mean people have sex during marriage, too?
    
    	I thought that ended on the same day that the honeymoon did.
    

    premarital sex...bad! bad!

    
    I remember it quite fondly.
    
    -b

    
    
    Great!!!
    
    First we have Brian Markey's pre-occupation with that "p" word, and now
    Di's pre-occupation with premarital sex...
    
    What pre-tell is next????
    

 ZZ       premarital sex...bad! bad!
    
    Right Bonnie...that's where most of the damn abortions are coming from.
    
    Hope this helps!

    
    re: .128
    
    >premarital sex...bad! bad!
    
    
    read that somewhere Bonnie... Hmmmmmmm????
    

       > You mean people have sex during marriage, too?
       
       Well, yes, but not necessarily at the same rate.

    
    .130:
    
    There's always mz_debra's preoccupation with "fisting"...
    

    
    > First we have Brian Markey's pre-occupation with that "p" word, and now
    
    No, first we had Brian Markey's PERCEIVED pre-occupation with the
    "p" word... :-) :-)
    
    -B

    
    	Actually, Jack, most of the abortions come from stupid and/or
    	irresponsible people having premarital sex.
    

>>    First we have Brian Markey's pre-occupation with that "p" word, and now
>>    Di's pre-occupation with premarital sex...

	er, hunh?  anyways... andrew, my dear, it's "preoccupation". 
	avoid superfluous hyphens and the repitition of idols at all times.
	hth.

    btw... I like hyphens...
    
    So there...
    
    besides, they're allowed-doncha-know
    

    I think you mean pray-tell, or perhaps prey-tell.  8^)

    
    
    I said what I meant, and I meant what I said...
    
    An elephant faithful, 100 per cent!!!
    

    
    	Had you switched the 1st 2 sentence fragments around, that last
    	entry would have rhymed.
    
    	Quite well, I might add.
    

    
    Well... it's from an old cartoon and I was going from memory (which it
    seems is not the thing to do...)
    

    
    	Well, I graduated from a public school, so at 1st glance it looked
    	fine to me also.
    

    
    Cartoon?!  That's Dr.Seuss, about the elephant that hatches some bird's
    egg.
    
    Gosh, what was the name of that book?
    
    

Bzzzt!  It's from Dr. Seuss.  "Horton Hatches the Egg" to be precise.

    
    	And when the egg finally burst open, is that when Horton heard a
    	Who?
    

Same elephant, different book.

    
    It might've been from a  Dr. Seuss story, but I distinctly remember it
    being a cartoon on TV...
    
     There was also a cute, non-sensical (ooops! There goes that hyphen
    again!!) song at the end when the chick and it's new parent amble
    away... (won't even try to describe it..)
    

    
    >again!!) song at the end when the chick and it's new parent amble
                                                 ----
    
    	And there goes that apostrophe again.
    
    	8^)
    

    
    
    I guess IT'S too late to do a Dick Binder... huh??

    
    	Nah ... didn't stop Binder, now, did it?
    
    	8^)
    

    
    
    Well... saving face ain't my forte, so I'll leave it...
    
    ;)
    

    	Anybody see the photo of Mary Tyler Moore neck-to-toe in 
    	leather, holding a riding crop and suggestively straddling 
    	an on-all-fours Dick Van Dyke wearing leather pants?
    
    	Even the ones with all-American images think they have to 
    	degrade their images and dive into the cess pool.

    
    .154
    
    I saw that.  It made me feel kinda funny, like when we used to climb
    the rope in gym class.
    

    
    	Rolling!!
    

    I played by the rules, lived at home until day I married, no pre-
    marital sex; divorced after 13 years of marriage.
    
    If I had a dollar for every time I've wished that I'd had the guts
    to sleep/live with my ex I wouldn't be worrying about retiring :-)
    In other words, I never would have married him.  I don't think the
    relationship would have been a "flash in the pan"; but as years
    went on it became painfully clear that we had precious little in
    common.  We went through individual and couples counseling, it
    didn't work for the long haul.
    
    

    Relationship between living together and divorce.....
    
    People who live together tend to have more "flexible" ideas about
    marriage, like if problems occur that can't be worked out through
    counseling or other effort, the best thing might be to get divorced.
    
    People who think it's wrong to live together before marriage tend to
    have more "strict" views of marriage, that you stay together no matter
    how bad the problems are.
    
    Hence, it appears that the people who live together first have the
    higher divorce rate because in a similar troubled marriage, they'd get
    divorced and the more "traditional" couple wouldn't.
    
    Lisa
    
    

    And some of us who have premarital sex, have premarital babies, not
    abortions.
    
    Carrie and Atlehi thank you very much for your concerns, but they are
    alive and kicking, tyvm

    mistrust has not nor will it ever cause abuse. financial issues will
    not nor have they ever caused abuse. Living together will not nor has
    it ever caused abuse. This is extreme over-simplification of a very
    complicated matter. 
    
    abuse is an effect of an individual's inability to cope with conflict.
    the cause has nothing to do with jealousy, or lack of money or the lack
    of a marriage certificate. 
    
    we know through scientific research that violence can be predisposed in
    someone (male or female). we also know that there are environmental and
    cultural elements as well. 
    
    
     

    
         When I got married I had dated my husband for 3 years and didn't
    have sex with him, didn't live with him. He believed I was a 'virgin',
    in a spiritual way I was, in a physical sense because of sexual abuse
    I wasn't.
    
        Well, the marriage probably shouldn't have taken place because we
    were 2 very dysfuntional people. But, I believe now that the 'biggest'
    breakdown was when I told him about the sexual abuse. He was so 'angry'
    for my having him 'believe' I was a virgin. I believe this was when
    he 'really' start to get more abusive than he already was. He was 
    pretty mean to me when we were first married. I figured back then
    that was 'normal' after all most of my role models had 'mean' dads.
    
        Well, I am officially divorced as of Friday Nov. 3rd, 1995. Best
    move I've ever made in  my life. We never could resolve anything. I
    do blame some of it on myself, especially where I wasn't 'mature'
    enough to tell him my secret. I do believe that a part of me believed
    he wanted to marry a 'virgin' and even though that wasn't the big
    reason why I hadn't told him, it played a part. We got married in
    1970, so that was an era where men did it with the 'loose' woman, and
    married the virgin that didn't do it with anyone. 
    
       In my years of therapy and groups, I see now that it is a
    'complicated' matter to be a human being, to be a wife or husband,
    to just 'be'. We can blame it on this or that all we want, but it's
    not simple to say "Well if I had told him I was raped at 8 years old
    the marriage would have survived." It's not that simple, he told me
    he wouldn't have married me if he'd known.  The truth is that if
    I had had the courage to tell him there wouldn't have been a marriage
    to this man. 
    
        In group with the rape crisis center I can see how this marriage
    of mine was really failing because of 'both of us'. I don't want to
    put the whole blame on him, because if I'd been a fully 'mature' adult
    I would have been able to either help the marriage (if that was to be),
    or I would have gotten out of it when I realized how bad it was. I
    stayed for as long as I could, for as long as I could try to without
    totally losing myself. It just didn't and couldn't work because he
    didn't want to 'participate' in supporting a better marriage. He liked
    it 'dysfuntional'. That's where a marriage will fail in my eyes, if
    BOTH people don't make some effort in saving it. 
    
        If 2 people can't work out their problems 'together' it's not going
    to be a healthy marriage. If one feels it's okay to be a 'rage aholic'
    when things are going bad, instead of sitting and rationally discussing
    the 'problems', then it won't work. 
    
        If people have jealousy issues that needs to be dealt with. Being
    jealous is not a 'funtional' and normal thing to have. If a person
    really loves and cares for another, they want that person to have
    friends. People who really love and care for EACH other need to work
    on the issues, whatever they may be.
    
        When I was going to the rape crisis center for group therapy,
    my nightmares increased. I was relieving a lot of childhood issues
    that were'nt dealt with when I was a child. When I'd wake up screaming
    he'd be so angry with me because I 'disturbed' his sleep. So he moved
    out of the bedroom into his own room to let me deal with it 'alone'. 
    AFter enough of these events I realized that this man couldn't 
    possibly love me. Woman in my group would talk of their nightmares
    and how their husbands would hold them and let them cry until they
    were able to fall back to sleep. In hearing this I knew in my
    heart that these woman were going to 'make it' in their marriages. I
    knew in my heart my marriage couldn't make it. I finally went and
    filed for a divorce. Best thing I ever did for myself.
    
        So, the bad marriage was there from the beginning, neither one of
    us could see it. WE didn't have good healthy parents to set a good
    healthy foundation for us, we saw a lot and heard a lot of how things
    'should' be, but never really understood it all. Life is complicated. 
    WE went into a marriage for the wrong reasons, these 'wrong' reasons
    hit us in our faces. 
    
         I'm sure if I had offered to live with my husband before we were
    married we probably wouldn't have been married. He would have then
    (I believe) have seen me as a (sleep around). (whore, like he called
    me when I told him about my trauma)
    
       I just wonder if the divorce rate is so high because people are
    realizing that they 'made a mistake' because they were so dysfuntional
    and their partner was so dysfuntional when they entered the marriage?
    How many of these couples are going to group therapy and then realizing
    that they aren't compatible? That they don't want to support the others
    beliefs and fears.? How many men and women, like my husband, want to 
    bury the childhood memories and not let the other one deal with the 
    pain with THEM.? 
    
         Rosie

    No doubt there are NUMEROUS reasons why abuse happens and my suggestion
    about living together before marriage was a point for discussion.  
    
    

    .160  Chip,
    
    Agreed!!
    
    .161 Rosie,
    
    You HAVE come a long way!!
    
    Looking back, I should have known what awaited me by just paying
    attention to the difference between our parents.  My folks weren't
    Ozzie & Harriet or June/Ward Cleaver, but there was always a lot
    of laughing together (not AT each other), hugs and affection.
    They tempered discipline with unconditional love.
    
    My former in-laws are not bad people, but there was none of the
    above in their relationship.  Divorce didn't happen because the
    "church" didn't allow it (although they actually seperated and came
    close to divorce shortly after their 40th anniversary).  Unbelievable!!
    Unfortunately, in the wake of "staying together for the children"
    there are now 4 adults who are children of that marriage who are
    totally clueless as to "how" to have a healthy relationship and/or
    marriage with anyone......and so it goes......
    
    I dismissed the idea of marrying again about 10 years ago, but IF
    marriage had become a possibility in any of the relationships I've
    enjoyed since my divorce, you better believe I wouldn't have agreed
    to marry anyone again without living with them first.  IMHO, there
    is no right or wrong labels that should be attached to a couple
    who do decide to live together; mere mortals DO NOT have the right
    to judge other mortals.
    

re: .160

At last, a lucid reply.

The way we were going, I expected Jack to say that burned ziti causes
murder.

\john

    well Rosie, i'm both glad and sad for you. i'm sorry so many people
    have to experience a hurtful life. i'm very glad that a lot of people
    end up for the better for having the experience. unfortunately, some
    don't even survive.
    
    it might not be my place, but a functional individual would have been
    there with all the support and understanding you'd need. a loving
    husband would have given much more. 
    
    he's a jerk and i applaud your courage in ending your sutuation. imo
    he is not worth any additional thought.
    
    good luck!
    
    Chip

    Apparently our beloved \John missed my initial response.
    
    I said that we can now put to rest the myth that living together before
    marriage has curbed violence.
    
    -Jack

re: .166

And me without my quatloos to purchase a translation.

I didn't miss what you wrote, Jack.  I read every word.  Even as
it got stranger and weirder, I kept reading.  Hoping against hope
that you'd have a reasonable point.

When I came to the end of the topic and no reasonable points from
you could be found, I posted .164.

Let's ask the straight questions: What does your "putting to rest
this myth" (see .166) prove/show?  What bit of your belief does
this "putting to rest" support?

How surreal this all is.  I'd have thought a company with this
many engineers and technical people wouldn't have such a huge
population of folks who don't understand correlation, causality,
and coincidence.

Oh well.  Back to worrying about cycles and blocks.
\john

>       <<< Note 63.61 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

>    ZZ    More than 700,000 women in the United States are sexually assaulted
>    ZZ    each year, one every 45 seconds. 
    
>    Maybe this will help dispell this cultural lie that there are benefits
>    to living together before getting married.  
    
>    Not a thumper note, a common sense note.  
    
>    -Jack
    

    \John:
    
    I brought up the issue as a new topic.  There is this attitude going
    around that when a couple lives together, they discover each other, get
    to know each other, and all the flowery mush and therefore will make a
    well informed decision before they commit for life.  
    
    As far as spousal abuse, the number is still high although the trend of
    living together has become popular.  Kind of shows what a farse this
    way of thinking is!

    Living or not living together is not going to convert/encourage
    abuse!!! For crying out farging loud!!!!

    Whatever....Pipe down!

    say Jacques and Marie are virgins when they tie the knot.
    say on their wedding night they discover that they are 
    sexually incompatible, resulting in the inability to
    procreate.  both jacques and marie want children.  what
    do they do?  

    	Describe 'sexually incompatible'.  There are very few such
    	'incompatibilities' in the first place, and of those that
    	exist, most can be overcome through physical or psychological
    	therapy.
    
    	Encouraging premarital sex for everyone to avoid the rare cases
    	seems pretty unreasonable.
    
    	Then again, this rationalizing is typical from the liberal 
    	camp, as seen in the abortion topic where all abortion should
    	be allowable because of the limited rare cases...

I've heard people use this term "sexually incompatible" but I've never
understood it.  Please explain it.

    
    	Maybe the square peg won't fit in the round hole, so to speak.
    

    oh joe, why not call it the hysterical liberal camp?

    
    Suppose one party wants to try oral sex and the other does not?
    
    Suppose one party won't put the effort into foreplay that the other
    party would like (or may require)?
    
    Suppose one party wants to "do it" more often than the other?
    
    Suppose one party is just a really lousy lay?
    

    
    	Shame, Joan ... oral sex is bad, and so is foreplay.
    
    	Wham, bam ... you know the rest, for procreation.
    

>    	Maybe the square peg won't fit in the round hole, so to speak.
    
A little sandpaper should take care of it.  Or a lathe, in serious cases.

    |I've heard people use this term "sexually incompatible" but I've never
    |understood it.  Please explain it.
    
    here you go, gerald.  someone is too big, someone is too small,
    or maybe even vice versa.  someone can't "perform", or maybe
    someone just doesn't like someone's technique.      
    

    	re .177
    
    	We also suppose that they are married, therefore in love and
    	willing to work out these differences.
    
    	Wouldn't it be better too if couples were encouraged to 
    	communicate beforehand on all sorts of issues that are
    	bound to arise in marriage?  (Not just sexual issues like
    	desires/morals, but issues about money, family, number of
    	kids, spending priorities (time, money, leisure), even
    	TV preferrences!  Etc.)
    
    	And what exactly is "a lousy lay", and how would virgins
    	recognize it?

    
    
    Joe...
    
    "lousy lay" = a rotten egg...
    
    
    Hth...
    

Lousy lei = Romanian currency with nits.

    >	And what exactly is "a lousy lay", and how would virgins
    >	recognize it?
    
     You don't really want to know.

    >	And what exactly is "a lousy lay", and how would virgins
    >	recognize it?
    
    It won't let go of the remote control.
    
    -b

    	And how very shallow one's love must be if he is willing
    	to run from the marriage on account of lousy sex.

I thought that you knew that the intensity of the orgasm was the official
meter of love.

    >	And how very shallow one's love must be if he is willing
    >	to run from the marriage on account of lousy sex.
    
     Too true. He'd be better off shagging a few on the side and staying
    with the old lady.

    
    
       63.172
    
        I think that this is a case where they didn't communicate very
    well before they tied the knot. Even if a couple doesn't 'do it'
    before marriage they need to talk about it. Just like talking about
    money matters, fears, likes, dislikes, open and honest discussions
    about everything. They should also make an attempt to have 
    an open communication about sex. But, of course these two are 
    'virgins' who wouldn't even know what they'd like to do. So, if they
    got married and just didn't enjoy each other, hmmmmm, then if they
    couldn't resolve that issue they would most certainly have a 
    problem. If one tried to solve it and the other didn't want to
    try, then they'd end up in 'divorce' court. On the other hand if
    they could 'work it out', make compromises that are good for both, then
    maybe they'd make it. 
    
         I'm not sure if living together is an 'answer' to preventing this
    problem. I would think that maybe living together they'd get to
    see if they 'liked' each other, but if there's major problems it's
    not going to solve them. But, it would be cheaper than a divorce. But,
    I don't know if I'D want to live with someone before I'd marry them. I
    don't know, I would think that even if two people were virgins, or
    didn't do it before they married they'd have some sort of 'feeling'
    as to whether or not they'd want each other in that way. Like sexual
    attraction still being there long after they've been dating. If they
    don't get 'excited' so to speak when they kiss (I'm sure they'd want
    to kiss at least) then maybe they would have a 'question' about
    that before the marriage. 
    
         As for violence against a spouse, I don't think it would matter
    either way, the violence is there. A person who would hurt another
    has serious problems, marriage isn't what caused them, the problem
    was there before they got married. 
    
       In my 'battered women's' group we heard a lot about how abusive
    people don't just abuse a spouse, chances are if people really 
    'look' at a person that has been said to have abused the spouse, 
    they'll recall other people that were abused in some way. 
    
        Rosie
                              

    
    >Too true. He'd be better off shagging a few on the side and staying
    >with the old lady.
    
    
    
    Or at least put some "Astro-Turf" in the back of his El Camino...
    
    :)
    

Of course, sexual problems are way down there in the list of causes for
divorce.  Money's #1, no?  Maybe they should have a premarital joint
checking account.

    interesting indeed, these responses to sexual incompatibility.

    Heh heh heh, heheh, heh heh heh. he said joint, heh heh heh heh heheh.

    
    Joe/John/Steve/Jack...
    
    Of course, there's something to be said for having no (or at least
    *fewer*) difficulties to work out in the first place.
    
    No, the orgasm is not the ultimate measure of love, any more than
    sound household finances.  But, like money, sex can put a HUGE strain
    on a relationship.  A couple in love works hard to iron out ALL the 
    problems (not just the sexual or financial ones), but some problems
    just don't iron out.
    
    Then what?
    
    Historically speaking, I've had...ummmm...more than one partner, and I 
    think I can look back and say with some certainty that I was more 
    compatible with some than with others (and not just sexually, either).
    
    But there's just no substitute for experience, and `living together'
    (of which `sleeping together' may or may not be a part) strikes me as 
    being the *perfect* way to test the waters of a relationship; to see
    just how compatible the couple is in *ALL* matters.
    
    And then they can decide whether or not they want to put the effort
    into resolving the conflicts.
    
    This has been my experience, and it seems to have worked out alright
    for me.  *I* don't have a problem with virgin marriages.  Why can't
    you extend to others the same courtesy?
    

    >Joe/John/Steve/Jack...
    
    
    Why am I included?  
    
    No big deal, really, I'm just curious.  8^)

    
    Sorry Steve...scattergun effect...
    
    You all look alike to me...   ;^)
    

    
    .191

    > Maybe they should have a premarital joint checking account.
    
    Did *that*, too.  Do y'all still respect me?
    

    
    Ask me in the morning.
    
    -b

    
    Oh, Brian, you're so *strong*, you're so big and strong...
    
    ...I'm saving myself for Ragucci, however.
    
    ;^)
    

    
                          (__)
                          (oo)
                   /-------\/ 
                  / |     || \ 
                 *  ||W---|| Snarf! 
                    ~~    ~~  

    

    .197
    
       | > Maybe they should have a premarital joint checking account.
    
       |Did *that*, too.  Do y'all still respect me?
    
       !joan, it appears you may have come down with a bad case
       of chronic liberal hysteria.  i'm so sorry.

    
    ...to go with my victimitis?  Now I don't feel so good...
    

>    Joe/John/Steve/Jack...

>    *I* don't have a problem with virgin marriages.  Why can't
>    you extend to others the same courtesy?
    
Thet thar was one o' them thar rhetorical kinda questions, weren't it, !Joan?

.Gerald> Or a lathe, in serious cases.

I seem to recall a story of an accidental castration, involving a machine
shop employee, a moving drive belt, an industrial stapler, and . . . 

    
    
    Musta been on Oprah...
    

      DAMNit, can you people PLEASE stop talking about premarital SEX.
    
    Such obsession is worthy of PIGs and not HUMANs.
    

    I loved sucking on elbows and knees, oh yes, and twirling my tongue
    around knuckles.

    i also understand that there is a strong correlation between the
    phases of the moon and Madonna's dating patterns (or is that tides).
    
    i dunno. anyway, correlating cohabitation with violence is, is...
    funny.

     [email protected]: List of sexist jokes about women sparks an
     on-line outrage

     By Michael Grunwald, Globe Staff, 11/10

     There is stupid. And then there is cyberstupid.

     A vulgar e-mail message listing the ``Top 75 reasons why women
     (bitches) should not have freedom of speech'' is creating an electronic
     furor as it zips around the Internet. For not only does the list
     include reasons like, ``38. If she can't speak, she can't cry rape,''
     it also includes the names of the four Cornell University freshmen who
     wrote it.

     The freshmen have apologized publicly and electronically, but they
     still must face disciplinary charges as well as on-line ``flames'' from
     campus feminists offering ``75 Reasons You Should Shut Your Mouths''
     and other angry messages. The young men are learning the price of
     offensive behavior in an era of instant communication and heightened
     sensitivity.

     ``This kind of thing is not acceptable in 1995,'' said Tracey Spiegel,
     a 17-year-old who first saw the list in the student lounge at Dana Hall
     School in Wellesley. ``I just can't believe that Cornell students would
     be that stupid.''

     The self-styled ``four-players of Cornell'' - Rikus Linschoten, Brian
     Waldman, Evan Camps and Patrick Sicher - did not return calls or e-mail
     from the Globe. But in a letter to the Cornell student newspaper, they
     expressed ``deep remorse'' for their ``stupid actions.'' They said they
     circulated the list as a joke among friends, never intending to offend
     anyone. They also tried to distance themselves a bit from their
     material:

     ``We have seen almost everything on that list in some kind of TV show,
     rap song, Internet list, comedian's act or talk show. We are not trying
     to blame anything on society; we just wish to convey that we never
     meant any of the things we wrote.''

     The apology has fallen flat on line; the list is pretty nasty stuff.
     Many of the reasons cannot be reprinted here. Some of the reasons seem
     to support rape: ``39. Of course, If she can't speak, she can't say
     no.'' Most are gleefully sexist: ``49. Whores get payed (sic) by the
     hour not by the word.'' Some are pure misogyny: ``53. If it hurts, I
     don't wanna hear it.'' Others are baffling as well as harsh: ``10. When
     men whistle at them in the street, they should just shut up and obey
     anyway.''

     Other reasons include affirmative action, women in Congress, Marcia
     Clark and ``that annoying fat bitch from Snapple.''

     Since it was written three weeks ago, the list has become a modern-day
     Odysseus of sorts, departing from Ithaca on an incredible journey. It
     surfaced at Harvard, Wellesley, Boston College and MIT as well as
     Haverford, Reed and the University of California at Santa Cruz.

     It arrived at Bryn Mawr hours before a Take Back the Night rally for
     women, sparking calls to Take Back the Net. It even reached high
     schools like Milton Academy, where boys and girls have responded with
     outrage.

     ``It's everywhere,'' said Harvard freshman William Abely. ``People on
     line are really upset about it.''

     To be sure, there is some pornographic, misogynistic and otherwise
     disturbing material circulating on line, and there are bills in
     Congress proposing to regulate Net speech. A test case arose at the
     University of Michigan in February when a student was arrested for
     posting a fictional story about the rape, torture and murder of one of
     his classmates. The charges were later dropped.

     But in this case, the Cornell students gave offended surfers a
     free-speech response requiring no government intervention. By revealing
     their identities, the ``four-players of Cornell'' became flame bait.
     Not only has the Cornell women's center posted fliers with their names,
     but off-campus computer users have tracked down their e-mail addresses
     and sent them angry messages.

     ``It is hard to know what to say to you,'' posted Toby Sheppard Bloch
     of Reed College in Oregon. ``Your list was not funny. The celebration
     of violence against women is abhorrent.''

     The Boston College women's center is discussing whether it would be
     possible to crash the entire Cornell e-mail system.

     ``We're thinking about it,'' said Vanessa Hosein, a senior psychology
     major at BC ``These people are incredibly stupid. We want them to pay
     for what they did.''

     In an interview with the Cornell Daily Sun, the authors said they have
     received hundreds of flames, including death threats. They also face
     university sanctions: at least one charge of sexual harassment has been
     referred to Cornell's judicial board. Henrik Dullea, Cornell's vice
     president for university relations, said the case is under ``very
     active review.''

     ``This was derogatory, offensive, demeaning and gross, and we regret
     that it happened at Cornell,'' Dullea said. ``But there's not much we
     can do about it now. It's all over the country.''

     Harvey Silverglate, a Boston attorney who is writing a book about free
     speech on campus, denounced Cornell for considering disciplinary
     action. ``The answer to bad speech is good speech,'' said Silverglate.

     Harvard student Abely said he agreed. He does not think the Cornell
     students should be disciplined. Just flamed. He titled his response:
     ``75 Reasons Why You are Stupid.''

     ``I like a good joke, but I also enjoy a degree of decency and human
     respect,'' he wrote.

     This story ran on page 25 of the Boston Globe on 11/10.

    
    That reminds me of the furor at Queen's University (here in Ontario)
    some time ago regarding the "No Means No" anti-date rape campaign.
    
    Some chowder-heads in one (or more) of the frats began to mock the
    campaign with such slogans as "No Means More Beer" and "No Means
    Tie Her Up" and other, less intellectual compositions.
    

Good to see free speech is alive and well over there - NOT.  So the list
was in appalling taste, so what?  If a self appointed censor of free speech
bans everything that they don't happen to like, what're you left with?

Chris.

Scorned women punish a North Carolina fraternity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) 1995 Copyright Nando.net
(c) 1995 N.Y. Times News Service

RICHMOND, Va. (Nov 10, 1995 - 22:01 EST) -- A fraternity at the University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill had its charter suspended Friday after a
women's group on campus disseminated the fraternity's pledge-recruitment
letter, which reads like raunchy ramblings at an out-of-hand keg party.

The undated document, on the fraternity's letterhead, was delivered to the
dormitory rooms of 40 students rushing Phi Gamma Delta, known on some
campuses as Fiji.

The letter invited prospective members, among other things, to ogle sorority
pledges "as they stumble around the dance floor in a drunken stupor
bordering on the brink of alcohol poisoning." There also were references to
masturbation, oral sex and slang for female genitalia.

The letter, essentially a calendar of the week's events, included a guide to
the nicknames of several brothers in the fraternity, including the "Buzz
King" and "I Haven't Showered in a Week."

One band was said to have been "booked to play sets of aphrodisiac tunes
guaranteed to generate potent sex energy from any women from the Chi Omega
heat."

Ron Binder, the university's director of fraternity affairs, said the
fraternity had admitted circulating the note during rush, a three-week
recruitment period that ended in September.

"To put it bluntly, it was a very idiotic attempt to lure students over
there," he said. "They took the smallest pledge class of any fraternity here
this fall. That was the good news. The students did not respond. The
fraternity pledged six new members."

The national office of Phi Gamma Delta Friday afternoon notified the
Carolina chapter that its charter was being suspended indefinitely. Nick
Altwies, the assistant executive director of the national fraternity, said
membership could be returned after an investigation, which he said would
take at least several days.

During that time, the chapter cannot recruit or initiate members.

"This is not something we support or tolerate," Altwies said from the
fraternity's headquarters, in Lexington, Ky. "We want to look at who put it
together, and what was their point."

One of the three rush chairmen who signed the letter and spoke only on the
condition that his name not be used, expressed regret that he had been
caught.

"The letter was not meant for anyone else to see," he said. "Girls got ahold
of it, and printed it out and copied and sent it all over the place."

Copies of the letter were given out Wednesday night at the beginning of a
"Take Back the Night" march, which was part of a campus Rape Awareness Week.

The letter was read aloud at the march by a member of a campus group, People
Organized For Women's Empowerment And Rights, or Power.

Lindsay-Rae McIntire, 20, a junior who said she had attended other
fraternities' parties, said: "As a woman, I think it's very threatening. But
I also don't think the intention of the fraternity brothers was to be
harmful or disrespectful. This just represents a lack of education on issues
like violence against women, and male-female relationships."

Elsewhere on campus, Jason Silverstein, a senior who is the president of the
Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity, said: "The ideas aren't original. But putting
them on paper seems so ludicrous, I thought it was a prank.

"Unfortunately, fraternities are still stereotyped in the 'Animal House'
image of the '70s and '80s," he said. "Most fraternities are more interested
in community service and leadership these days. If this did happen, it's a
poor reflection on an actually good group."

Indeed, Binder said his office was created in March to promote healthy
activities for the university's 43 fraternities and sororities. With 30
members, Phi Gam, as the fraternity is known on campus, is one of the
university's smallest fraternities, Binder said. The fraternity was founded
in 1848, and has 130 chapters. Carolina has had a chapter for 125 years.

The chapter agreed to sanctions that include a service project at a local
rape crisis center, and education for members on sexual harassment and
alcohol abuse. In addition, the university now must approve the chapter's
rush materials.

Binder added, "We might think of that for all our groups."

    Isn't this the same state where a legislater said that women can't get
    pregnant if they are raped?
    
    sad, but not shocking

    I wouldn't trust any of these people, therefore they would probably
    want to beat me up.

    
    "Scorned women punish"?  What in the world is that supposed to mean? 
    There were no scorned women in the article, and they didn't do any
    punishing.  What a stupid title.
    
    

    
    
    	agreed. The title simply drips of knuckle-draggin'
    neanderthalism...
    
    
    

    Scorned women were presumably those students of the female gender who
    took the slurs in the letter personally.
    
    DougO

Because of the cliche "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned,"
"scorned women" normally refers to women who've been personally
scorned.  It sounds like these guys scorned all women.

    
    The way the title was worded made me think that there was a group
    of women who had been personally wounded by this fraternity (I don't
    know - the brothers refused to date them, or something), and that the
    women then somehow managed to punish the fraternity.  Not only that,
    but "scorned women" made me think it was an unjustified punishment by
    said women.
    
    That wasn't the story at all.  Generic women may have complained, but 
    National yanked the frat's charter as a punishment, not the women, and
    whoever wrote the title needs a clue.
    
    

    Sounds like the penultimate school for hysterical penis waving.

    re: .219
    
     I agree. The way the title was written it seemed to indicate that the
    women's anger was illegitimate.

    
    HEY!  Careful where you point that thing!
    

    You could put an eye out! .^/

    <-----------
    
    Not if they're from the Suzanne Conlon School of Language studies!!!!

    Which reminds me of a joke. What has 96 legs and 5 teeth?

    the richardson family reunion?

    
    
    Ooooohhhh, the doctah got you, Glenn.

    far be it from me to insist that the writer's use of the word was
    correct, when two such illustrious and capable readers as Deb and Mark
    both took incorrect inferences from it.  The writer's job is to
    communicate, and merely because I got it, doesn't mean it wasn't wrong.
    
    DougO

    Yes, yes he did. So Mark, you've been to Nova Scotia then?

    >far be it from me to insist that the writer's use of the word was
    >correct, when two such illustrious and capable readers as Deb and Mark
    >both took incorrect inferences from it.  The writer's job is to
    >communicate, and merely because I got it, doesn't mean it wasn't wrong.
    
     I "got it" too, but I still think it was a lousy title. The title of
    an article should be closely related to the contents of the article,
    and I think title could have been far more aptly worded. 
    
     Frat boys reinforce sexist image
     Sexist list costs fraternity charter
    
     Put the focus on the boys who perpetrated the act, not on the coeds
    who took offense to the list.

    
    
    
    The charter should have been revoked.  It could be reinstated if things
    change RADICALLY.  Good ole frat boys, that's why me and my buddies
    used to ride our motorcycles around frat row and give em all a bunch of
    crap.  Join a fraternity, pay for your friends........

    > I think title could have been far more aptly worded.
    
    Calm down.  I was sortof agreeing with you.
    
    DougO

Cornell charges 4 students in e-mail prank
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) 1995 Copyright Nando.net

ITHACA, N.Y. -- A computer E-mail message listing "75 reasons why women
should not have freedom of speech," which was sent as a prank by four
freshmen at Cornell University to 20 friends, has ricocheted through the
Internet, provoking thousands of angry messages to Cornell from campuses
around the country.

Cornell has charged the students -- Evan Camps of Bethesda, Md., Rikus
Linschoten of Newport Beach, Calif., Pat Sicher of San Juan, P.R., and Brian
Waldman of Massapequa -- with sexual harassment and misuse of computer
resources, said the university's judicial administrator, Barbara Krause.

She said the charges stemmed from lines like, "If she can't speak, she can't
cry rape," and, "Of course, if she can't speak, she can't say no." The
message also contained several vulgarities about oral sex, Ms. Krause said.

David Lambert, the university's vice president for information technology,
said that this was not the first time offensive material had appeared on the
Cornell network, but he added that the university had never before had such
a wide response to the message that the four students sent last month.

Students and faculty members at many colleges, from Harvard to Stanford,
have contacted Cornell's administration to lodge complaints. The four
students said they had been receiving 50 to 60 threatening responses a week.

Cornell's vice president for university relations, Jacquie Powers, said,
"There were threats from various groups to try to crash our system."

Lambert said his department had been virtually overwelmed by phone calls and
E-mail. After receiving nearly 1,000 messages, he said, he stopped reading
his E-mail.

By treating the incident as a case of sexual harassment, the university has
run into an escalating debate about free speech on the Internet.

Many private universities have speech codes that prohibit racist or sexist
language and have applied these codes to campus computer networks. But
Cornell does not have such a code, nor does it control the content of its
computer network.

Ms. Krause said the university brings charges against a student only if his
or her speech constitutes harassment against a specific individual who
complains that the message was directed at him or her.

The sexual harassment complaint might be difficult to pursue, she added,
because it was not made by any of the 20 original recipients. The
university's sexual harassment guidelines require that for a violation to be
found, one of the original recipients must file the charge. None of the
original 20 has filed a complaint; Cornell would not name the complainant.

A Cornell spokesman, Henrik N. Dullea, said in a statement last Friday that
the university regrets that the incident occurred "and that Cornell's good
name and reputation have been damaged in the process."

The students made a formal apology that was published on Nov. 3 in the
campus newspaper, The Cornell Daily Sun.

    Nice broken broad brush you got there Mike.  I expected much more from 
    you than to denigrate an entire section of college population like that
    based upon stereotypical Skippyisms.  I will however go so far as to
    say that the FIJIs at my school were by and large morons with a few
    notable exceptions.  I have known other chapters that were very good 
    citizens at their respective campuses.  Certainly not enough data to
    condemn the entire national and the collective greek system.  
    
    Brian

    
    
    There are always the exceptions, Bri.  Just relating my personal
    experiences.  
    
    
    Mike

    Cornell's response is ham-handed and simple minded, appealing to the
    visceral while forsaking the rational. These eunuchs have been getting
    plenty of negative response for wearing their "I am a <bung>hole"
    signs. Having Cornell come down on them as well, particularly in the
    absence of supporting policy, is thoroughly wrongheaded. Freedom of
    speech includes the ability to get hammered by various and sundry when
    one is particularly stupid. That is the system we've put in place, and
    it works just fine when left alone. 

    I'm inclined to agree with Mark here.  There's no law against making a
    fool of yourself.  The sexual harrassment charges are bogus and simply
    there to make it look like the school is doing something.  I see a
    similarity here to elected officials that enact 'feel-good' laws that
    do nothing.  Since the school has no policy on prohibited language, I
    don't see how they could be found guilty of mis-using the schools
    computer resources.
    
    I suspect that they have already received all the punishment and
    enlightenment they need.  If that doesn't change their behaviour, then
    they are simply sexist pigs who will find themselves increasingly
    isolated in this world.
    
    Bob

 Z   with sexual harassment and misuse of computer
 Z   resources, said the university's judicial administrator, Barbara
 Z   Krause.
    
    Can one be charged with misuse of the computer?

    
    	Not if the language used isn't against the rules, which I be-
    	lieve someone said it wasn't.
    

    Cornell has a huge investment, as does any major University, in its
    computer resources, and following the notoriety of the Internet Worm
    case, first released at Cornell, has followed a fairly strict abuse
    policy.  I find it hard to argue that students getting free use of
    those resources for the studies are not to be found guilty of misusing
    those resources in such an egregious manner.  Throw the book at them,
    and at anyone who is so careless of the responsibilities that should
    accompany the rights to the exercise of free speech.
    
    DougO

    
    AP 15 Nov 95 0:04 EST V0162
 
    Copyright 1995 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
 
    Ex-Husband Stabs Woman At Work

    HOUSTON (AP) -- A Neiman Marcus employee was stabbed by her former
    husband Tuesday at the checkout counter where she worked, then left for
    dead, police said. 

    After the attack, the man calmly walked out of the mall where the
    upscale department store is located and sat on a bench, where he was
    arrested by store security, police said. 

    Donna Anthony, 36, was hospitalized in stable condition with a slashed
    throat and three stab wounds to the chest. 

    Lonnie Ray Land gave police a statement, Sgt. J.L. Waltmon said. He
    would not elaborate. Land was being charged with attempted murder late
    Tuesday, the sergeant said. 

    Police said Land attacked Anthony with a 6-inch pocket knife while she
    was at the counter of the Women's Sport Shop. 

    He continued stabbing her after she collapsed, then broke the knife off
    in her body, tossed it aside and walked out, Waltmon said. 

    Anthony, who divorced Land several years ago, fled about 30 yards and
    ducked into a nearby stockroom, where she collapsed, Waltmon said. 

    Liz Barrett, a Neiman Marcus spokeswoman, said store officials were
    "terribly upset" but wouldn't release any other information. Anthony
    worked there 13 years. 

    
    AP 14 Nov 95 22:07 EST V0123
 
    Copyright 1995 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
 
    Survey: 1 In 3 Women Abused

    PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- One in three women have been victims of domestic
    abuse and half were assaulted before the age of 18, a medical study
    found. 

    Domestic violence experts say the survey confirms their estimates,
    while doctors said they need to train each other to better identify
    patients who need treatment and counseling. 

    The study of 1,952 adult women was conducted by Johns Hopkins
    University School of Medicine in Baltimore and was published in
    Wednesday's edition of the Philadelphia-based Annals of Internal
    Medicine. 

    Between February and July 1993, nurses in four Baltimore-area medical
    practices had patients fill out confidential questionnaires in
    examining rooms. The survey asked whether the women had been physically
    or sexually attacked and when, as well as general questions about their
    current emotional and physical health. 

    "The women don't volunteer the information. The doctors have to ask,"
    said Dr. Jeanne McCauley, the lead author of the study and an assistant
    professor at Johns Hopkins. 

    "Studies have shown that doctors are afraid of offending them by asking
    bout domestic violence. But women aren't offended, in fact they see it
    as a sign of concern." 

    The women who reported abuse were four times as likely to attempt
    suicide, the study found. About 17 percent had abused drugs or alcohol. 

    Of the 639 women who reported experiencing domestic violence at some
    point in their lives, 108 said it had been within the past year. Nearly
    420 women had experienced domestic violence in their adult life, and
    429 had experienced it before age 18. 

    About half the women attacked in the past year reported abuse that
    resulted in broken bones, burns, internal injuries or head injuries. 

    McCauley believes the Baltimore study reflects the general U.S.
    population, as opposed to other studies which have been conducted in
    emergency rooms, specialty clinics or shelters and reflect a more
    limited racial or socioeconomic background. 

    Rita Smith, national coordinator for the National Coalition Against
    Domestic Violence, said she was not surprised by the survey's results,
    but hoped the medical profession would use the survey to change their
    practices. 

    "I think it can be used as an educational tool. It will let doctors and
    nurses know how many of these women are in the system and maybe they
    will learn how to protect their patients from future injuries," she
    said. 

    McCauley said the results of the survey have already changed the way
    she practices medicine. 

    The women who had been abused complained of a litany of physical and
    mental maladies ranging from headaches to sleeplessness to high anxiety
    and low self-esteem. 

    "When a woman comes in with multiple symptoms, and complains of
    depression or anxiety then I am more aware of the possibility of
    current or past domestic violence, and I ask them about it," she said.
    But she added doctors still have more to learn. 

    "There is so little money available for research concerning domestic
    violence and there are so many more questions that need to be
    answered," she said. 

    Truly sad. What an indictment.

    DougO;
    
    I agree with you then!

    
    re: .242
    
    >Ex-Husband Stabs Woman At Work
    
    I believe if he takes the "Lorena Bobbitt" defense, he'll be all set...
    

    
    
    That's an interesting article, Deb.  I hope the women who are truely
    abused start pressing charges against these cretins.  
    
    
    Mike

    re: Dougo and getting free usage of computer resources....
    
    What's tuition at Cornell these days?
    
    What those boys did was stupid, not criminal.  Furthermore, were the
    authors the ones who distributed the filthy stuff, or did those
    other folks toss it out into the public domain?
    
    This issue is pure hype, appealing to the tabloids...
    
    MadMike

    Doug's wrong on this one. Censorship backfires.

    You don't wanna be censored you should get yur own internet resources.
    When you're speechifying on somebody else's dime, they own the filter.
    
    DougO

>Many private universities have speech codes that prohibit racist or sexist
>language and have applied these codes to campus computer networks. But
>Cornell does not have such a code, nor does it control the content of its
>computer network.
    
     Well, Doug, if they wanted to do soemthing about it, they should have
    prohibited it beforehand. Trumping up charges at this point amounts to
    ex post facto rulemaking and undermines the credibility of their
    rulemaking.
    
     Consider the sxual harassment charge. Who did they harass? Nobody.
    They promulgated ugly and repugnant attitudes and words, but they were
    targeted at no one in particular. Had the mail not been discovered,
    there could have been no possibility of such a claim of harassment.
    
      Ok, let's try misuse of computer resources. Except Cornell doesn't
    have a rule about that. Hmmm. This is a clear case of the university
    responding to an angry mob that's shouting "something must be done," so
    they are willing to allow these boys (and the rules) be the sacrificial
    lambs. It's stupid. Just let things run their course. The boys are
    being shunned. What could be more effective in the long run?

    
    
    As Mark has pointed out previously, there's no law against being an
    idiot (look at me as case and point :')).  

    That's "case in point." nnttm. ;-)

    
    Perhaps he wanted us to point at him.
    
    

    > Ok, let's try misuse of computer resources. Except Cornell doesn't
    > have a rule about that.

    Nonsense.  Before the Morris worm their policies were perhaps vague,
    but as an employee of Cornell Computer Services for over 2 years in
    the period from 1981-1983 I can guarantee you that policies did in
    fact exist.  And after the Morris worm they were tightened up by
    quite a bit.  Misuse of computer resources is definately against
    University policies, especially as regards use of the Internet.

    The one legalistic hole the offenders might possibly try to slide
    through is that the combination of rules prohibiting sexual harassment
    in general, and prohibiting abuse of computer resources, aren't written
    in the specific case to say that sexual harassment via computer abuse
    is prohibited.  That rule doesn't exist.  Nor need it, imo; any
    reasonable interpretation of either rule would prohibit the conduct.

    DougO

    re: ex post facto regulations
    
    Absolutely... looks like the anti-PC backlash didn't last too
    long, after all.  These offensive statements, and the students
    who made them, stand out quite well on their own without inventing
    quasi-legal mumbo-jumbo to muddy up the mess.
    
    Anyway, I always thought the word "harassment" had to involve
    something directed from one person to another specific person
    (i.e., targeted), and/or something that was repeated, where
    requests to cease and desist were being ignored.
    
    If non-directed public comments can be considered harassment, then
    how come things like radio talk shows haven't been sued for various
    offensive comments that have been cast out into people's home radios
    over the years?
    
    Has the meaning and usage of "harassment" changed over the years
    to mean something different?  If so, does this change the enforcement
    of older laws that were written using the word "harassment" but
    intending the earlier meaning?  Or is it "whatever we want it to
    be"?
    
    Does "harassment" now mean simply "offense"?  If so, it's quite a
    broad brush, difficult to prove, and devalues the impact of "true"
    harassment by lumping it in with "simple" offensiveness.
    
    Language experts, have at it...
    
    Chris

    
    >Has the meaning and usage of "harassment" changed over the years
    >to mean something different?  If so, does this change the enforcement
    >of older laws that were written using the word "harassment" but
    >intending the earlier meaning?  Or is it "whatever we want it to
    >be"?
    >
    >Language experts, have at it...
    
    
    	Oh, no ... tell me you were kidding when you said that.  8^)
    

    Re .256:
    
    > The one legalistic hole the offenders might possibly try to slide
    > . . .
    
    You seem to be forgetting the big reason the "offenders" aren't guilty
    of anything:  The first amendment to the Constitution of the United
    States.  Cornell accepts federal funds, doesn't it?  Also, there's no
    harassment here by the mail's writers because the writers didn't send
    the mail to anybody who minded.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Just because some pitifully socially inept people seem to enjoy
    immunity from the rules regulating Digital employees uses of Digital
    computer resources does *not* mean that all such policies everywhere
    may be totally disregarded when used in supposed 'free speech' cases.
    
    Your mileage may vary.
    
    DougO

    >>	Oh, no ... tell me you were kidding when you said that.  8^)
    
    Well, tweaking at least... :-)
    
    Chris

    Re .260:
    
    Nobody said anything about Digital.  Free speech rules would apply to
    Cornell not because of anything at Digital but because Cornell accepts
    federal funds.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    You present a curious argument.  Title IX challenges have used the
    federal funds argument to insist that Title IX applies to University
    sports programs which are clearly violating rules on sexual
    discrimination.  This situation appears quite differently to me because
    the speech itself is not suppressed.  The opinions of the students and
    their rights to hold and disseminate these opinions are not at issue. 
    What is at issue is the means by which they do this.  I don't think it
    reasonable to suppose that acceptance of federal funds implies that all
    computers on campus thereby become protected podiums for the
    dissemination of protected speech- clearly the University has a right
    to establish rules on proper use of its resources.  I am not aware of 
    any rulings imposing such a requirement, that by permitting internet
    access for legitimate research purposes the University thereby accepts
    the unrestricted use of all such platforms for whatever speech users
    desire to provide.  I don't think the courts would support such an
    interpretation.
    
    DougO

    Re .263:
    
    > The opinions of the students and their rights to hold and disseminate
    > these opinions are not at issue.  What is at issue is the means by
    > which they do this.
    
    No, the means by which they do this is not at issue.  It's computers.
    
    If an organization is subject to first amendment restrictions, it can
    control the place, time, and means of speech -- but not its content.
    You can't say "It's okay to use the computers to communicate on all
    sorts of subjects, except you can't use the computers to communicate X,
    Y, or Z."  Once you've allowed general communication on computers, you
    can't censor it.
    
    > I am not aware of any rulings imposing such a requirement, that by
    > permitting internet access for legitimate research purposes the
    > University thereby accepts the unrestricted use of all such platforms
    > for whatever speech users desire to provide.
    
    Nobody said any such thing.  Nobody said you have to allow it on all
    platforms.  The Supreme Court has said that WHERE you do allow speech,
    you can't censor it.  The university allows speech on computers, so it
    cannot censor speech on computers.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    N> Nobody said any such thing.
    
    Yes, you were delightfully vague about it all, handwaving "federal
    funds" at the issue and leaving the details to me.  Have fun- I
    don't feel impelled to convince you.  This is a resource control issue
    for privately owned computers, to me, and to Cornell.  Let them
    matriculate elsewhere if they don't like the restrictions.
    
    DougO

    if you think trading bon mots with Eric Postpischil proves one's
    manhood, Andy, feel free.  
    
    DougO

From:	US3RMC::"[email protected]"  6-DEC-1995 11:44:35.88
Subj:	The Daily - December 06, 1995 (fwd)
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transition home survey
May 31, 1995
 
More than 2,300 women, accompanied by 2,200 children, were living in shelters
that offer housing for abused women and their children on May 31, 1995,
according to the 1994/95 Transition Home Survey.
   Eight out of 10 of the women were there to escape abuse. Of those cases, 70%
involved physical abuse, typically from a current or former spouse or partner.
   In the 12 months up to May 31, these shelters recorded more than 85,000
admissions. In addition, on a typical day they received approximately 3,000
requests for services from non-residents.
   Nearly one in four of the women fleeing abuse (23%) was under the age of 25,
and 43% were aged 25 to 34. Most of the children accompanying these women were
under 10 years of age. One in 10 was an infant under one year of age, and about
a third were aged between one and four years.
   A third of the women who had been abused had reported the latest incident to
the police. Charges had been laid in just over half of these cases.
   On May 31, 1995, a total of 405 residential facilities in the provinces and
territories were providing services for abused women and their children. The
majority of these facilities (74%) were transition homes that offer secure
housing for the short- or medium-term (1 day to 11 weeks).
   The next most common type of facility (10%) was second-stage houses that
offer longer-term (3 to 12 months) residence. Seven percent of facilities were
emergency shelters that provide one to three days of respite for a broader
population, not necessarily limited to abused women. Another 5% were safe home
networks that offer very short-term housing for abused women and their children
in private homes. A variety of other types of shelter made up the remaining 4%
of establishments.
   The most common services offered by the shelters for the benefit of children
were individual counselling for children (75%) and parenting skills (73%).
Culturally sensitive services for Aboriginal children or for ethnic and visible
minorities were available in half the facilities.
 

    Associated Press
    
    DHAKA, Bangladesh -- Thousands of women rallied at the capital Monday
    to protest Islamic clerics' attacks on female education and employment.
    Arriving by train, bus and hitchhiked rides, a crowd estimated at
    100,000 converged on a tree-lined street overlooking
    Parliament. Protesters waved placards demanding equal rights and
    denouncing Islamic fundamentalists. "Until now, the fundamentalists have 
    been targeting us, the women," peasant Fatema Sumi told the crowd. "It's 
    time we target them."
    
    The rally was sponsored by the Association of Development Agencies in
    Bangladesh, an alliance of about 800 non-government organizations 
    promoting jobs, literacy, health care and family planning for women.
    Some Islamic leaders say female education and other projects of the
    agencies violate religious law. At least 1,400
    schools for girls were vandalized in the predominantly Muslim country
    in 1994 after clerics launched a campaign against the agencies' work.
    
    More than a dozen women from poor farm families spoke to the rally.
    The demonstration was initially planned for September, but Islamic
    groups protested the plan and the government
    refused permission then.
    

    Which once again proves my point that the UN Women's conference is a
    moot exercise...futility to the core.  It matters not how well
    intentioned it was, I'm sure it was a great symbolic gesture.  But now
    the sobering reality!!!!
    
    -Jack

    Jack, Jack, Jack.  Your little Limbaughstic tirade proves only one
    thing unfortunately and it certainly isn't your point.  Would you be
    willing to consider the possibility that these women felt empowered
    enough to further their protests after having a greater degree of
    courage as a result of the conference?  Nah, couldn't be.  I would have
    thought you of all people would applaud their protest in hopes of
    quelling rampant population growth.  Oh well.

    Brian:
    
    Please don't misunderstand.  I value above many things the right to
    dissent, that's the core of democracy.  Unfortunately, I don't believe
    the UN Woman's conference carries it's effects as far as it should and
    I believe puppet dictators and oppressive governments will continue to
    treat women as chattel just as they have for thousands of years.
    
    My tyrade as you put it was really only to point out the
    ineffectiveness of the conference.  Dialog is one thing.  Concensus is
    yet another.
    
    -Jack

    MKOTS3::JMARTIN is the beginning of misunderstanding.

	Jack, how can you make a statement like that? Gee, it isn't cured
EVERYWHERE RIGHT THIS VERY SECOND....so it was ineffective. Uh huh....Jack, if
it saves one life.....

    Gee Jack,
    
    Does that mean a particular religion is a failure since in over 2000
    years it still hasn't converted the world?  
    
    meg

    Well Meg, you point is well taken since the sufferage movement took
    years to have an effect.  Eventually it did.  However, would you agree
    that the worlds diversity is too great to reach concensus in the matter
    of women's rights?  Particularly in the middle east and in China?
    
    As far as the Church, just as a side note I believe the Spirit of God
    draws people to salvation but not all!
    
    -Jack

    
    Mayor wants judge ousted after slaying of court-protected woman
    
    
    Copyright � 1996 Nando.net
    Copyright � 1996 The Associated Press 
    
    NEW YORK (Feb 15, 1996 10:39 a.m. EST) -- Mayor Rudolph Giuliani says
    he will try to oust the judge who freed a violent criminal so he could 
    be reunited with his dog, ignoring the pleas of the man's ex-girlfriend 
    who said he had beaten her.
    
    Three weeks after being released in $2,000 bail, Benito Oliver killed
    his former girlfriend and then himself.
    
    Giuliani said Wednesday he would move on several fronts to try to
    remove Judge Lorin Duckman, including asking the state Assembly to impeach 
    him or having the governor petition the state Senate to oust him on a 
    two-thirds vote.
    
    The mayor's fury was sparked by the release of court transcripts
    showing that Duckman gave priority to reuniting Oliver with his dog, over 
    the welfare of Galina Komar, 32, a former girlfriend and mother of a 
    5-year-old from a former marriage.
    
    At a Jan. 24 hearing, Komar argued against setting free Oliver, a
    35-year-old car alarm mechanic with a criminal record, but Duckman 
    questioned how severely he had beaten her.
    
    "There is no actual physical injury, is there, other than some
    bruising?" the judge said, according to court transcripts. "I'm not 
    suggesting bruising is nice, but there is no disfigurement. There are no
    broken bones."
    
    He added that granting Oliver's request to be reunited with his dog,
    "will assure there is no further violence in this case."
    
    Monday, Oliver walked into an auto dealer in Queens where Komar worked
    and shot her in the head. Then he killed himself.
    
    A furious Giuliani said Duckman showed "far more consideration for the
    dog than for the woman who is now dead."
    
    "It's sick and there should be proceedings to remove this judge," the
    mayor said Wednesday before attending Komar's funeral.
    
    Gov. George Pataki said Duckman's decision to free Oliver raises
    "serious questions about his fitness" for the job.
    
    "For the judge to have permitted him to be at liberty on such facts is
    an outrage," Pataki added.
    
    Komar had been caring for Oliver's dog during the six weeks that Oliver
    was in jail awaiting trial for assaulting her. The mayor said Oliver 
    continued to call and threaten Komar from jail, in violation of court 
    orders of protection.
    
    Duckman's term on the Criminal Court runs through 2002.
    
    Calls to the judge at the courthouse and his home were not returned.
    
    

    
    
    Just a little bruising......no broken bones or anything.....   
    Unfreakingbelievable.

    
    
    A lot of time, the law is very unclear w.r.t. bail.

    
    	They couldn't very well lock him up, now, could they?  They
    	needed the cell for a marijuana smoker.
    

    <--- How true.

Impeach him and make him take care of the dog for the rest of their combined
lives.

    
    A clip from a story in USA Today:
    
    >Police say Thomas was shot in the back of the head by Patrolman Philip
    >Perrone during a violent struggle as officers tried to make an arrest. 
    >They had been called to [the] building on a report that Thomas was 
    >beating a woman, believed to be his girlfriend. 
    
    >Thomas had two prior convictions for assaulting a city officer, and had
    >spent time in prison for resisting arrest, sexual assault, and drug 
    possession. 
    
    ...
    
    >Thomas' aunt, Joyce Pitts, said her nephew may have done "some
    >mischievous things, but he wasn't ever really a violent person." 
    
    
    Mmm-hmm.
    
             

    
    	I guess she's looking at the grand scheme of things.
    
    	3 violent incidents, let's estimate on the high side and go with
    	2 hours each ... 6 "violent hours" total.
    
    	Compare that to, ummm, let's guess on the low side on this 1 and
    	say 20 years old, and that's 175,200 total hours.
    
    	How violent is he?  Not very violent, since only .003% of his
    	time was spent violently.
    

    RE: .284

    Isn't that the same rationale used to say that Hillary didn't do much
    work on that real estate scam?

    -- Dave

    
    How many violent incidents, on average, does one NOT get caught doing
    compared to each violent incident that one gets caught doing?
     
    And on top of that, how many violent incidents does one commit compared
    to each incident for which one gets convicted?
    
    IMO, sexual assult, beating, etc., are violent, not mischievous.
                                                                
    

Tsk, tsk.  Boyzlbeboyz.

    
    Hmmm...
    
    Maybe if he did the deed in a bar, we might have recourse?
    

>Boyzlbeboyz.
    
    A cousin to Beelzebub?

     Judge Frees Men Charged With Raping Girls

     By Associated Press, 04/30/96

     NEW YORK (AP) - A judge has freed two men charged with raping a pair
     of sixth-grade girls despite prosecutors' request for $10,000 bail.

     Saying the victims were not physically hurt, Judge Donna Recant
     allowed Kareem Harris, 19, to walk free Monday after his arraignment
     in Manhattan Criminal Court, the New York Post reported today.

     The second suspect, Claudius Green, 18, left court after posting
     $1,000 bail. The prosecution had requested $10,000 bail in each case.

     Barbara Thompson of the district attorney's office said there would be
     no comment. Calls to Recant were referred to the Office of Court
     Administration, where spokesman David Bookstaver said the district
     attorney ``did not substantiate the amount (of bail) requested.'' He
     said the suspects had no prior record, their families were in court,
     they were in high school and ``high bail would have been punitive.''

     Harris and Green live in the same Harlem neighborhood as the alleged
     victims, whom they know, the Post said. The girls were invited Friday
     to the apartment of Green's aunt, where they told police they were
     held down and sexually assaulted.

     In addition to rape, Harris and Green face charges of endangering the
     welfare of a child. They are forbidden from approaching or speaking to
     the alleged victims, whose names authorities did not release.

     The judge explained her decision to free the youths by noting that
     neither of them had a prior criminal record and that Harris had used a
     condom.

     ``Nobody was physically injured. They all knew each other. And nobody
     was dragged up there against their will,'' Recant told the Post.

     Judges' rejections of prosecutors' requests have prompted outrage in
     several New York cases this year. Federal Judge Harold Baer, who threw
     out key drug evidence against a woman, reversed his decision after a
     barrage of objections voiced by state and federal officials, including
     the top presidential candidates.

     Brooklyn Criminal Court Judge Lorin Duckman freed a man - a convicted
     rapist - who then killed his ex-girlfriend. Duckman's decisions are
     now under review by a state judicial commission.

     AP-DS-04-30-96 1157EDT

re .290:

In most states, bail is set based solely on the likelihood of the defendant
fleeing.  If the judge had used this rationale to free them on little or
no bail, she'd be within her rights.  But to say that "nobody was physically
injured!?"  At the very least, the victims were psychically injured.

    
    Who cares, they're only females.
    

    
    
    	"were not physically hurt"
    	"charged with raping"
    
    	???????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?
    
    
    	Excuse me while I barf.
    

    ..."nobody was physically injured"..."used a condom"..."not dragged"
    ...hmmm
    
    I suppose "being held down" and being in the "sixth-grade" don't count
    for much. [I'm assuming that the sixth-graders in question aren't a
    pair of 19-year-olds who've been held back a grade 7 times ... in this
    age of 'social passes' probably a fair assumption]
    
    Oh, no. I guess "being held down" counted enough to make the charges
    stick, but "[using] a condom" counted as being responsible about it.
    
    feh.
    
      Annie

    .291
    
    So if the defendant has a long history of brutal sex-related crimes,
    like, say, a Jack the Ripper, a judge would be doing the right thing
    (by the law) to set him free on his own recognizance so long as he
    wasn't a flight risk?
    
    And we wonder why so many crimes are committed by nearly-skint
    defendants free while awaiting trial...

    There has to be a reason why the judge reacted this way. The judge was
    female after all. why would she be so indifferent?

Dick, I'm not saying that's the way it _should_ work, but that's the way the
law generally reads.  If sentences are meted out based on past convictions,
then a habitual criminal would have a greater reason to flee, so judges could
set bail high based on the current law (in most places).

    
    > Who cares, they're only females.
    
    Well I care.
    
    And I have to say that I cannot believe what I just read.
    What in the world is the matter with that judge?
    
    God this gets so discouraging.

    
      Well, innocent until proven guilty, if you believe in it,
     means he's innocent when he posts bail.  So by what logic
     would you keep him locked up ?  Bail is just to prevent flight.
    
      bb

        > Who cares, they're only females.
        
  ZZZ      Well I care.
    
    Mz Debra, bring it to the 800-SOAPBOX string so we can hear what's
    bothering you today.  
    
    We Love you Mz. Debra.  You are important to us!

    
    	re .296
    
    	Well, I'd guess it might be because not all females think
    	alike.
    
    	Or do we ?
    
    	Can any of you ladies tell me what I'm supposed to think here ?
    
    

    Well, I haven't seen any women here agree with the judges assessment.
    Would anyone dare agree with this judge for any reason?

>    Would anyone dare agree with this judge for any reason?

	"Dare"?  What's the big risk?  I might agree with Judge Recant
	if I had been there listening to the whole argument like she was.
	I don't know.  We don't have a lot of information to go on here.

Will she recant, or will the baer the criticism?

    
       I wouldn't dare to agree with the judge, because I DON'T agree with
    the judge.....
     
        Rosie
    
        This reminds me of a group I went to last Thursday and the topic
    was 'Sexual abuse of Children'.... One fellow, who practically had the
    whole group (about 80 people) ready to lynch him because of the things
    he was saying. One was "How can you say the child is being damaged
    when there were no physical signs of abuse? Maybe the child enjoyed 
    what he was doing withthe other boy. People like you scare me, find
    out a child is having 'sex' and you overeact and ASSUME that the 
    child has been hurt." the speaker tried to explain to him WHY they felt
    the child was being damaged emotionally and he kept on  with things
    like. "Hey, if it's okay to touch a little girls arm, why isn't it 
    okay to fondle her vagina? She may in fact enjoy it and people are
    HURTING HER by taking away her pleasure."   His remark about the
    first child was when she used the example of a 4 year old boy that
    was being orally sexually abused by a 15 year old neighbor boy.... 
    
        Well, I raised my hand and let HIM know (without addressing him)
    the effects of sexual abuse on children. Then others spoke up more on
    the topic.  He didn't say anymore after that. In fact one woman did
    address him. She litterally told him that she felt he was trying to
    tell us he was a petifile and trying to justify his
    actions......Needless to say he left early... Last weeks topic was 
    Domestic Violence and he made a big deal about that. In fact he said to
    me. "I should be the speaker tonight. I'm a woman beater and child 
    abuser." When I looked surprised he told me to "Lighten up, I'm just
    joking, don't believe anything I say." He kept rubbing my back even
    after letting him know I was uncomfortable and I HAD left early that
    week. I was approached by one of the board leaders and told her about
    what happened the week before, this was after she said that a LOT of
    people are complaining about him, and have been complaining about him.
    Looks like the board is going to have a meeting and then the whole
    group may have to make a decision with this man. It ought to be
    interesting to say the least. Hopefully, he'll either realize something
    and stop the behavior, or he'll leave on his own. 
    
    
    
       Rosie
                                                      

    Sounds to me like the man needs to grow up.
    
    Rose, as sad as it sounds, we live in an amoralistic society.  What you
    as a group condemned last week is something taken for granted in other
    cultures.  This is why issues like slavery, abortion, sexual abuse, and
    other topics can't always stand the test of libertarian thought.  In an
    amoral world, there has to be room for moral absolutes.  Too bad we are
    often blinded by our craving for convenience.
    
    -Jack

     Man Kills Estranged Wife at Synagogue, Then Kills Self

     By Associated Press, 05/10/96

     WESTPORT, Conn. (AP) - A man walked into a synagogue and fatally shot
     his estranged wife, who was a synagogue employee, police said. He then
     killed himself.

     Stuart Hunter, 56, and Harriette Hunter, 48, both of Bridgeport, were
     pronounced dead at the scene Thursday.

     Ms. Hunter worked at the Temple Israel school, but was not in the
     school section of the building when the shooting occurred, said police
     Capt. Donald Brown.

     A school employee witnessed the shootings, Brown said.

     Hunter came to the temple just after noon and argued briefly with his
     estranged wife before shooting her in the head, police said. He then
     shot himself in the head, police said.

     Three shots were fired, police said. A .357-caliber handgun was
     recovered.

     The couple had been married four to five years and were in the process
     of getting divorced, police said. They did not have any children.

    
    * Man opens fire in N.Y. Social Security office
    
    NEW YORK - A heavily armed man opened fire inside a Social Security
    Administration office in New York Thursday, apparently hunting his 
    ex-girlfriend, and was shot to death by police, officials said.
    
    The former girlfriend, an employee at the office, was not there at the
    time, and no one else was injured in the midmorning shooting in the 
    borough of Brooklyn, police said.
    
    The gunman, identified as Sheldon Heron, 53, arrived at the office
    carrying a shotgun, a handgun and more than 200 rounds of ammunition, 
    they said.
    
    He fired several shots while telling workers in the office to call the
    FBI, police said. No one in the office was hit by the gunfire, although 
    one bullet struck his intended victim's desk.
    
    Heron fire at police as they arrived, and a gunbattle ensued. The Brooklyn 
    man was hit by police gunfire and died about an hour later at a hospital.
    
    Officials said Heron's intended target apparently was a woman with whom
    he had recently broken up after a 17-year relationship.
    
                    

    
    	You're just full of good news today, aren't you?
    

    
    Germany outlaws rape in marriage
    
    BONN - Germany made it a crime yesterday to commit rape within marriage, 
    after years of debating the issue. Chancellor Helmut Kohl's coalition 
    pushed a bill through the lower house, the Bundestag, to outlaw rape of a 
    wife by a husband. There were 318 votes in favor, 306 against and two 
    abstentions. The bill won all-party support in principle. All parties 
    agreed that it was wrong to view rape within marriage as just a case of a 
    man taking what was his by right. 
    

   .310  But wives can rape husbands with impunity? 

    Well, it was proven here than women can rape, so yes, the can rape en
    tabarouette.

    Scary that it was not even 60-40 on the vote!!! That's way too close
    for comfort.

    
    	What do you expect when there's very probably a 95/5 gender
    	split that is mostly male?
    
    	I mean, we're brutes and we think with our penises, so who's
    	really surprised??
    

    Rape isn't really about the penis, though. It's not a sex thing, it's a
    power thing. I'd like to think at least 80% of us testosterone driven
    beasts can manage to be happy without raping our wife.

    Holy Simonize Batman!
    
    I hope it's more like 99%!

    But the fact that it's barely 50% makes me feel yukky.

    On first glance the vote seems outrageous.  However, if German politics
    is like U.S. politics, it could simply mean that the bill had some very
    undesirable attachments to it.  Or, since no penalty is mentioned,
    perphaps the penalty is a wrist-slap and people voted against it
    because it lacked a meaningful penalty.  There are many possible
    reasons for the vote to be the way it was, including a very large
    minority of the membership having an early stone-age mentality.
    
    Bob

    Re:  Harlem rape
    
    All that judge did was prove that female judges can be just as
    stupid as male judges.
    
    Even if the sex had been consensual (which it was not), wouldn't
    statutory rape charges apply?
    
    

    Re .319:
    
    > Even if the sex had been consensual (which it was not), wouldn't
    > statutory rape charges apply?
    
    It makes me sick how little so many people understand the law.  The
    issue in .290 has NOTHING to do with what charges apply.  Charges have
    been brought and the defendants will be tried.  The judge has not said
    the defendants are not guilty or that the charges do not apply.
    
    The only issue is BAIL.  Neither the court nor the prosecutor is ready
    to try the case immediately.  That is not the defendants' fault, so it
    is unfair to keep people in jail when they have not been convicted
    unless the prosecution can prove they pose a risk of flight or of harm.
    All the judge decided was that the evidence so far does not meet the
    level of proof necessary to keep the unconvicted people in jail without
    trial.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
      Eighth Amendment :
    
        "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines
      imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
    
      bb

    
    			  Girl pushed off garage
                          remains in critical
                          condition
    
                          Associated Press, 01/28/97; 15:46 
    
                          BOSTON (AP) - A 16-year-old girl
                          allegedly pushed off the top deck of a
                          Framingham parking garage by her boyfriend
                          remained in critical condition Tuesday in
                          Brigham and Women's Hospital. 
    
                          Aradia Parente suffered injuries to her spleen,
                          legs, feet and back. 
    
                          Parente fell 48 feet from the Framingham
                          garage to the street late Sunday. Her
                          17-year-old boyfriend, Jeffrey Myrick, was
                          accused of pushing her because she wanted
                          to break up with him. 
    
                          Myrick was being held without bail after
                          pleading innocent Monday in Framingham
                          District Court to charges of assault with intent
                          to murder, domestic assault and battery and
                          possession of a double-edged knife. 
    
                          Myrick's mother said the girl jumped from the
                          garage, but prosecutors dispute that version
                          of events. 
    
                          

    
    	Her family says that she's never been depressed enough to think
    	of committing suicide.  His family says he's a nice guy.
    
    	His family says that she would always get depressed when they
    	broke up [apparently it happens alot].
    

    >Myrick's mother said the girl jumped from the garage, but prosecutors
    >dispute that version of events. 
    
     And I'm sure that Myrick was trying to prevent her from jumping, too.
    

  I wouldn't believe either of the teenagers.  They all lie.

  bb

    bb, I am truly sorry your experience with kids has been so rotten.  I
    however do know that not all lie.  
    
    Brian

    Everyone lies at one time or another... whether it be "a little white
    lie" or a "big fat lie"... doesn't matter.  We're human.  We all do it.

    
    			New records show teen
                        pried girlfriend's hands
                        from railing
    
                        Associated Press, 02/06/97; 16:20 
    
                        CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) - A teen-ager
                        accused of pushing his girlfriend off a
                        Framingham parking garage first robbed her,
                        then shoved her off the roof and pried her hands
                        from the railing where she was hanging 48 feet
                        above the ground, according to court records
                        released Thursday. 
    
                        The records were part of a Middlesex County
                        grand jury indictment charging Jeffrey Myrick,
                        17, with the attempted murder and armed
                        robbery of 16-year-old Aradia Parente on Jan.
                        26. 
    
                        Myrick was to be charged with assault with
                        intent to murder, assault with a dangerous
                        weapon, assault and battery and armed
                        robbery. He was being held at the Cambridge
                        Jail without bail and was scheduled to be
                        arraigned in Middlesex Superior Court on
                        Friday. 
    
                        Myrick previously was charged in district court
                        with pushing Parente from the five-story
                        Framingham garage to the street. Parente is
                        recovering in Brigham and Women's Hospital in
                        Boston from injuries to her feet, heels, legs,
                        pelvis and lower back. 
    
                        New court records indicate that the two youths
                        were on the roof of the Pearl Street Garage
                        when Parente told Myrick that she wanted to
                        end their relationship. Myrick allegedly
                        demanded at knifepoint that she give him
                        several hundred dollars she was carrying, then
                        grabbed her wallet from her coat and pushed
                        her off the roof. 
    
                        Parente grabbed the railing but, instead of
                        helping her, Myrick pried her hands off the
                        railing and she fell, prosecutors said. 
    
                        Myrick went to a nearby restaurant and called
                        for help, saying Parente had jumped or fallen
                        from the structure, according to authorities. 
    

 Z    New court records indicate that the two youths
 Z                           were on the roof of the Pearl Street Garage
    
    Ahhh Pearl Street, the street of my old Middle School which is now the
    Danforth Museum.  The Public Library is right behind it and the parking
    garage is multileveled.
    
    Typical behavior for that part of Framingham.  Some things don't
    change.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 63.428 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Ebonics Is Not Apply" >>>

| Some things don't change.


	Yes, you are correct

    
    	... but he probably doesn't agree with you, Jack.
    

    the two youts?

    That side of Framingham always had a bad element to it....still does.
    
    

    All depraved I'll bet.

    Sounds like a good candidate for 25 to life, to me.

    Sing to the tune of On Top of old Smoky
    
    On Top of Old Sparky
    
    Strapped in old sparky, all covered in gwee.
    I shouldn't have pushed her, I was jealous you see.
    Don't throw that switch sir, I'll be a good boy. 
    Try to make up and buy her a toy. 
    I don't want to die sir, or go to my grave.
    It's not all my fault though as I am depraved.
    I hope she's all right now, really I do.
    The worst that I'd hoped for was that she'd sue.
    Now here I sit sir all lonely and scared.
    It would never have happened if only she cared. 
    

According to his family, she had been suicidal when they'd broken up in the
past.  I think it's simply a case of boyfriend-assisted suicide.

re .435  No death penalty in Massachusetts.  Sorry.

  of course not...we'll rehabilitate him

  bb

...or just house, feed and clothe them for a little while.

She's not dead, or even close to it.  Are you, Lucky-Jack-like, advocating
capital punishment for assault?

  .440  assault?  i thought he was being charged with attempted murder,
	no?

OK, attempted murder.  It all comes down to intent.  I know of no state
in which attempted murder is a capital crime.

    
    		     Man stabs wife to death for
                     starting dinner without him
    
                     Associated Press, 04/29/97 08:35 
    
                     FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) - A computer
                     specialist for the Federal Aviation Administration
                     stabbed his wife to death, telling her ``you did this
                     to yourself,'' because the family started eating
                     dinner without him, police said. 
    
                     Sharon Perales was stabbed at least once in the
                     chest and died on the kitchen floor Sunday as their
                     12-year-old son and 16-year-old daughter called
                     911. 
    
                     The boy told police he heard his father say to his
                     mother, ``You pushed me to the limits. You did this
                     to yourself.'' 
    
                     Federico Perales, 52, waited calmly for officers to
                     arrive, said a police spokesman, Lt. Mark Krey.
                     He was charged with murder and held in lieu of
                     $100,000 bail. 
    
                     Mrs. Perales, 48, and the children sat down to eat
                     a late dinner when trouble began, Krey said. Her
                     husband was in another room. 
    
                     ``She had called her husband to eat dinner but got
                     no response, so they went ahead and started to
                     eat,'' he said. ``Mr. Perales then sat up from the
                     couch and became irate because they had started
                     eating before him.'' 
    
                     Perales walked into the dining room, grabbed his
                     wife by the hair, pushed her to the floor and cursed
                     her, police said. 
    
                     The children tried to reach the telephone in the
                     kitchen to call police, but their father pushed them
                     away, Krey said. The daughter ran to a bedroom
                     to call while the son remained in the kitchen,
                     watching as their father began opening cabinet
                     drawers until he found a large knife, police said. 
    
                     The children and other relatives said Perales had
                     been violent toward his family in the past and Mrs.
                     Perales had recently told him she wanted a divorce.
    
                     

    What a jerk. Give him the needle.

	Meanwhile, in England, Brenda Richardson, 54, was jailed
	for two years for manslaughter yesterday, after Manchester
	Crown Court was told that she had no recollection of the
	events that led to her stabbing her husband through the
	heart after he complained about the quality of the lettuce
	in a salad for their evening meal.

	They had been married for 29 years, and there were no known
	problems in the marriage.  She acknowledges that there was
	a major disagreement, out of the blue, over the food that
	night, but all she is sure of is that she did not take up
	the knife intending to use it.  She misses him dreadfully.

    
      It's bad placesetting, I tell ya.
    
      Stick to spoons and forks.
    
      bb

    
    .443...
    
    
    sounds like my house in my early high school years, minus the
    stabbing...
    
    
    

    ate too brute, then fell into caesar.

    {thud}

In .443 we have a man stabbing his wife to death for starting dinner early.

In .445 we have a woman stabbing her husband to death for complaining about
        the lettuce.

In the news from London today, Steven Hawkes has stabbed his boyfriend
Graham Hawkes to death in a row over some chicken marinade.

	"He said I was putting too much marinade on the chicken and
	 I replied, `Don't be silly.'  Then I accidentally stabbed
	 him with the knife I was holding as I shrugged like an Italian."

Prosecutors said the entry wound was inconsistent with the defendant's
story.

/john

Don't forget the "burnt ziti" murder in Framingham.

    
    And people wonder why the only thing I make for dinner is salad or
    reservations.
    

Careful with that lettuce, Mz_Deb.

    Dressings?  We have French, Italian, house, blue cheese, butterfly,
    bandaid and cottonwool-gauze.
    

	Don't worry, Deb ... the last thing I'd want to do to you 
	after dinner would be to stab you.

    >>  And people wonder why the only thing I make for dinner is salad or
    >>  reservations.
    
    yeah, but it's not like the kitties are gonna complain... :>
    

    .455
    
    Don't think you're going to be *too* poky with Mz_Debra!

    filthaaa.

>In .445 we have a woman stabbing her husband to death for complaining about
>        the lettuce.


    
    Brings new meaning to the phrase "lettuce prey"...

    Head for the hills! 

    
      does the italian shrug come BEFORE or AFTER you slice 'n dice
     the spouse and/or vegetables ?
    
      bb

    Spouses take careful beboning.  You can't just dice them up, unless you
    are willing to really autoclave them.
    
    

    
    er, hanh?

Does "deboning" have anything to do with "second virginity"?

    
    
    		     DA: Teen-ager who wielded
                     guitar in defense will not be
                     prosecuted
    
                     Associated Press, 05/14/97 02:33 
    
                     HINGHAM, Mass. (AP) - In the eyes of the
                     woman he protected, Mark Wipfler was a high
                     school hero. 
    
                     But in the eyes of the law last Friday, when he beat
                     an intruder with an electric guitar, he was just
                     another hoodlum. 
    
                     Police arrested the 18-year-old for assault and
                     battery with a dangerous weapon after he bloodied
                     and battered a man while protecting a friend's
                     mother. 
    
                     ``I just think that he stepped too far over the line,''
                     Lt. Joseph McCracken said. ``We don't have the
                     right to swing a guitar at somebody. If we did this,
                     we would be going to court.'' 
    
                     Although police said they stood by the charges,
                     Plymouth County District Attorney Michael
                     Sullivan said Tuesday he would not pursue the
                     case against Wipfler. 
    
                     The Wareham high school senior, who wants to
                     join the Marine Corps, was visiting the son of
                     Jennifer Lewis when her estranged husband
                     shattered a glass door and burst into the house. 
    
                     Michael Lewis, 33, allegedly threw his wife against
                     a wall and started screaming at her. 
    
                     Wipfler said he reacted instinctively when he
                     picked up the nearby guitar and smacked Lewis in
                     the head twice, fracturing his skull, breaking his
                     jaw and knocking out his front teeth. 
    
                     ``Mark saved my life,'' Jennifer Lewis told The
                     Patriot Ledger of Quincy. ``He's a hero.'' 
    
                     Jennifer Lewis filed for divorce earlier this year
                     after six years of marriage. 
    
                     Michael Lewis spent four days recovering from the
                     attack at South Shore Hospital in Weymouth. 
    
                     When he was released Monday, he was taken to
                     Plymouth County jail. He is charged with burglary,
                     assault and battery, malicious destruction of
                     property and violating a restraining order. 
    
                     It was his second arrest in two months on charges
                     of assaulting his wife. He faces trial next week on
                     charges that he violated a restraining order March
                     4, and vandalized his wife's car. 
    
                     Lewis is being held without bail in Friday's case.
                     He faces a bail hearing today in Hingham District
                     Court. 
    
                     Wipfler is still awaiting official word that he will not
                     be prosecuted, his lawyer said. 
    
                     ``I'm absolutely bewildered that he can face
                     criminal complaints,'' lawyer John McDonald said.
                     ``He should get a medal for what he did.'' 
    

I hope the guitar wasn't damaged.

    
>                     When he was released Monday, he was taken to
>                     Plymouth County jail. He is charged with burglary,
>                     assault and battery, malicious destruction of
>                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  I don't understand. If he was in the process of committing a felony,
  why is it against the law to bop him on the skull?

kb

  Unless of course there is misdemeanor assault and battery.

    Must have been a solid-body. You can't sustain that kind of damage 
    with an arch-top.

  What brand of guitar ?  Was it a fender bass ?

  bb

re .467:  The husband was the one who was charged.

I guess the kid should have called the police instead.  I'm sure they 
would have gotten there before the guy killed his wife, give or take 
a half hour.

The kid was _also_ charged with assault and battery, by the police.

Whether he will be _arraigned_ or not is another question.

/john

    Not the kind of fender bender I would want to be involved in.

<--<< .470 

>re .467:  The husband was the one who was charged.

 Gerald, I understood that.  The problem I have is why the kid was arrested.
  He saw the husband break into the house and throw his friend's mother 
  against the wall. From my perspective, he was defending his friend's mother.
hth
kb

    
    
    	Somebody needs to update the radio peoples.  The reports
    	I heard this morning said that it was the woman's own son
    	that whacked the guy.  Heard the same story on more than
    	one station too.
    
    

    charges are not being brought against the kid.
    ken
    

    >> I don't understand. If he was in the process of committing a felony,
    
    because criminals have rights, too.  it must have something to do with
    the amount of "force" used to protect what you are protecting.  there's
    a case that is often illustrated in the business law books.  guy owns a
    house that is abandoned.  house is frequently vandalized.  guys sets up
    booby-trap to protect his house.  booby trap (some sort of gun set up
    to fire upon break-in) shoots off burglar's leg.  burglar sues guy.
    burglar wins.  guy didn't have the need to use deadly force in that
    particular situation....
    
    >> Michael Lewis spent four days recovering from the
    >> attack at South Shore Hospital in Weymouth. 
       
    doesn't surprise me...nothing happens quickly at south shore hospital.
    
     
    
    

<--<< .478 

   Booby trap scenario is not analogous..  
   No crime being committed at the time booby trap is set.
   There is a crime in progress with the woman fearing for her life.
   I think a bop on the noggin is completely justified.
ymmv    
kb

I agree that the booby trap is not analogous.  I think the kid was probably
justified in this case.  But suppose the perp wasn't so violent.  Say he
slapped the wife in the face.  Would the kid have been justified in
clobbering the perp so hard that he ended up in the hospital for four days?

edp can add to this [or correct it], but I'm under the impression 
that "self defense" is justifiable only if it's you that's in danger.
IE, the kid was not in danger, so justifiable self-defense is not an 
issue ... it's practically irrelevant.

Had the wife hauled off and wailed on the guy with a guitar, there 
might not have been anything the guy could do about it.

<--<< .480 

>slapped the wife in the face.  Would the kid have been justified in
>clobbering the perp so hard that he ended up in the hospital for four days?

  The husband had previously assaulted the woman.
  He broke into the house.
  The fact that he evened moved as if to strike the woman is enough to
  justify to me that he needs a conk on the noggin.  Are you waiting for
  the perp to do some _more_ damage.  Are you trying to draw a line as to
  how much force is needed to deter him.  IMO, when he broke through the
  door into an occupied dwelling, he crossed the line and the boy would
  be justified using lethal force. 

kb

    my guess would be that the law would call it battery anyway.

Um, I said "Suppose the perp wasn't so violent."

However, the booby trap is not as irrelevant as you make it seem.

No, there was no crime being committed at the time it was set up, but 
there was a crime being committed when it deployed itself ... or it 
wouldn't have deployed itself.

Heck, there was no crime being committed when Les Paul [for example] 
made that guitar, but there was one being committed when it was used 
as a weapon.

   .484  Reading is hard.

RE: perp not so violent

I think you're allowed to use "about as much" force to restrain as 
was used by the perp ... "about" is a hazy term, though.

    -1 re; "about"... and a little gray too.

<--<< .481 
 
 I didn't say anything about justifiable self-defense.  He was coming to
 the aid of a victim of assault and battery.  It happened in an occupied 
 residence. Law varies from state to state but I still think the kid was 
 justified.  

kb

RE: .484/.486

It might have helped to explain what you meant by "violent".

1) Crashes through door and slams wife against wall.
2) Crashes through door and gives wife a noogie.
3) Knocks on door, walks in and slams wife against wall.
4) Knocks on door, walks in and gives wife a noogie.

#1-3 contain violent acts.
#1 and #3 contain violent acts against a human.

RE: .489

I wouldn't care if the kid shot the guy, since it sounds like he 
deserved it.  But the law is funny when it comes to protecting 
criminals.

    1-4 contain violent acts.  Some of these contain more than one violent
    act.  

    Re .481:
    
    > edp can add to this [or correct it], but I'm under the impression 
    > that "self defense" is justifiable only if it's you that's in danger.
    
    Not so.
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

Well, then pretend that the noogie was administered to her 
well-padded wig and not directly to her head.

IE, pretend that a noogie is non-violent [especially when compared to 
a slam against the wall].

  well, then you can only hit him with a banjo ?

  bb

If she's wearing a Tiny Tim wig, can you hit him with a ukelele?

 or a Henny Youngman wig can you hit with a violin?

    In Colorado if someone, make that anyone, breaks down your door without
    a court order, you may shoot him/her or use any retaliatory force at
    your disposal. The populas has nicknamed this law the "Make My Day"
    law. The only thing the victim has to show is that they feared physical
    harm. Someone breaking into your home, while you are home, has been
    shown to be proof enough. This law is based on what I believe to be an
    objective tenet. That is that when someone forcibly takes away the
    rights of an individual, that person's rights are automatically removed.

  unhand that woman, you cur, or I'll open my violincello case...

  bb

Populace.
Violoncello.
NNTTM.

RE: .498

CRASH!!  Man comes flying through door and yells "Hey!!".

Woman sitting at table picks up gun and blasts him.

Man falls down on floor, grabs chest, and finishes his sentence ... 
"Your son was just hit by a car.".

Better yet, a man gets hit by a car with such force that he breaks down the
[flimsy] door.  Homeowner puts him out of his misery.

    A proper way to deal with car accidents is to break into a home?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

 
naw, its just a cheap shot at justifying bad behavior

    >BRITE::FYFE "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or 
    
    
    Throw it out?  :)

Oh, please.

Break down a door to tell someone their kid got run over?
Shoot someone who came flying through your door, and was lying there
unconscious?

You folks would do these things? Really?

    It's called creating a problem that doesn't exist in order to give the
    illusion that you have a point. Simple really.

    I wouldn't fret over the guitar thing unless there was a string of
    similar assaults.

    I already used that one, oh Mr. Observant.

  the kid's response certainly strikes a chord

  bb

RE: .506

"Break down"?  Perhaps I didn't say that, but instead said "Crash 
through", because I did in fact say "crash through".

[I guess this is known as "changing a hypothetical situation to show 
how 'impossible' it would be to occur, since the original situation 
could actually happen and wouldn't help to prove your point".]

> CRASH!!  Man comes flying through door and yells "Hey!!".

                     Flying right through it, eh?  
                     
Adequately approximates breaking down, if you ask me. If you're saying he
merely opens the door and shouts at me, well, that's different.

"Door" was supposed to mean "doorway", if that makes a difference.

If that's your beef with the reply, I'm surprised you didn't remind 
me that people can't fly either.

Don't blame him. Your the one who wrote it.

	8-[

    Di just can't stand it.

  dougla's fyfe ?

  bb

    Seems rather a pointless excercise discussing wheather the kid was
    justified in what he did. Obviously the police thought he wasn't. The
    courst decided he was. Seems like a water tight case to me. In fact you
    might even go so far as to say, as water tight as a penguins arse.
    
    Steven 

    Re .513:
    
    > "Door" was supposed to mean "doorway", if that makes a difference.
    
    Then there is no analogy.  The incident reported in .465 and the
    Colorado law both involve _breaking_ into a home, not "flying" through
    a doorway.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

"Breaking and entering" is sort of hazy to me ... if a door or 
window is unlocked and you walk/climb into a house that's not your 
own, is that "breaking and entering", or just "entering", or just 
trespassing or something like that?

    If you are uninvited, I'd say criminal trespassing. 

    
		     Man convicted of killing wife
                     wants right to see their child
    
                     Associated Press, 05/15/97 11:17 
    
                     BOSTON (AP) - A state prison inmate says he
                     should have the right to call and visit with his young
                     daughter, even though he was convicted of fatally
                     stabbing her mother while she watched. 
    
                     That request, by inmate Charles R. Thompson Jr.,
                     has led to a proposal for legislation that would
                     prohibit judges from giving child visitation rights to
                     one parent convicted in the first-degree murder of
                     the other, unless the child consents. 
    
                     Thompson, who is in the state prison at Norfolk,
                     was convicted last May of killing his estranged wife
                     two years ago in front of their then-3-year-old
                     daughter. 
    
                     Holly Thompson suffered 24 stab wounds. Her
                     husband was under a restraining order at the time
                     for allegedly beating her two months earlier. 
    
                     Within a month of being convicted, Thompson
                     wrote to his dead wife's parents, Rudolph and
                     Agnes Rexer, asking to see his daughter, Lizzie. 
    
                     He wrote again two months later, this time saying
                     he planned to ``exercise may parental rights from
                     here on out,'' and demanding that he be allowed to
                     see his daughter twice a month and phone her once
                     a week. 
    
                     ``Holly's rights died with her, but his rights go on
                     and on. They never end,'' Agnes Rexer told The
                     Boston Globe Wednesday. 
    
                     Relatives said the girl, now 5, calls her father ``the
                     bad man'' and asks her grandmother if they are safe
                     from him. 
    
                     When told her father wanted to talk to her, she
                     re-enacted the killing by repeatedly punching a
                     couch, family members said. 
    
                     ``It would just push her over the edge to see him.
                     She wants nothing to do with him,'' said Dottie
                     Alessi, a cousin who has baby-sat the child. 
    
                     Alessi has been the leader of a drive that got more
                     than 22,000 signatures from around the state and
                     from other states urging passage of the visitation
                     rights bill. 
    
                     Judges say requests such as Thompson's are
                     increasing. 
    
                     Robert P. Murphy of Boston, who was convicted
                     of fatally stabbing his wife while one of their
                     children watched, asked a judge in December
                     1995 to change custody arrangements so his two
                     children could visit him. That request was denied. 
    
                     ``The usual case that I have seen is that the parent
                     who has committed the crime seeks to block the
                     child's adoption by'' a relative of the slain parent,
                     said Probate and Family Court Judge Anthony R.
                     Nesi. 
    
                     Other inmates have asked for custody or visitation
                     rights, Nesi said. 
    
                     Judges are not prohibited by state law from
                     granting visitation to a parent convicted of killing
                     the other parent, but legal observers said they
                     could not recall a case where that has been done. 
    
                     ``As a father, he theoretically has the right to
                     visitation,'' said Janice Bassil, a specialist on family
                     and criminal law. 
    
                     ``But a judge is going to make a decision based on
                     whether it's in the child's best interests. For the
                     most part, probate judges are pretty protective of
                     children,'' Bassil said. 
    
    

you freaking people who want to protect the criminal! a criminal has no rights.

a noogie can supply a lot of pain when performed correctly.

the woman shooting the door bursting "son is hurt" person should be aware if 
that person is brandishing a firearm before shooting; one should make sure the
percieved threat is real before undertaking deadly force.

someone gets pushed/projectiled through a door would obviously not look like 
they were ready to rape, etc anyone.

ogre.

    .522 another one (or 2) for the "Un-Freaken' Believable" book.

    
    buglarious intent?
    
    

>        <<< Note 63.526 by LANDO::OLIVER_B "looking for deep meaning" >>>
    
>    buglarious intent?

	yeah, like trying to wake everyone in camp up really early.
    
    

    Re .520:

    > "Breaking and entering" is sort of hazy to me ...

    From Black's Law Dictionary:

         Breaking and entry.  Term used to describe the necessary
         elements of common law burglary which consisted of breaking
         and entering dwelling of another in nighttime with intent to
         commit a felony therein.  Statutory forms of burglary consist
         in variations of the common law crime, e.g. entering without
         breaking with intent to commit misdemeanor.

         Breaking.  Forcibly separating, parting, disintegrating, or
         piercing any solid substance.  In the criminal law as to
         housebreaking and burglary, it means the tearing away or
         removal of any part of the premises or of the locks, latches,
         or other fastenings intended to secure it, or otherwise
         exerting force to gain an entrance, with criminal intent; or
         violently or forcibly breaking out of a dwelling, after
         having unlawfully entered it, in the attempt to escape. 
         Actual "breaking" involves application of some force, though
         the slightest force is sufficient; e.g. an actual "breaking"
         may be made by unloosening, removing or displacing any
         covering or fastening of the premises, such as lifting a
         latch, drawing a bolt, raising an unfastened window, or
         pushing open a door kept closed by its own weight.  Even the
         opening of a closed and unlocked door or window is sufficient
         to constitute a "breaking" within terms of statute, so long
         as it is done with a burglarious intent.

    				-- edp


Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Sounds like a baking felony.