text:
Talk:Pork roll

Ingredients
This article is nice, as far as it goes... but what _is_ Taylor Ham? It's obviously processed. Is it closer to being a type of sausage or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.213.12.106 (talk • contribs) 14:59, June 9, 2005
 * Yes, it's a kind of sausage. - CobaltBlueTony 15:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * But what are the cuts of pig going into the pork roll? Pork butt? byproducts? Inquiring mind wants to know???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.201.208 (talk • contribs) 01:39, January 2, 2006
 * I believe it's byproduct, the ingredients only say pork. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.149.131 (talk • contribs) 23:53, April 5, 2006

 * I'm in Pittsburgh, originally from NJ. Was raised on this stuff and no idea what exact meats comprise it.  I'm guessing a mixture of lean ham and fatty, hot dog-like by products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.115.108.122 (talk • contribs) 12:51, October 11, 2006
 * Taylor Ham is a brand name, there is no way pork roll should redirect to Taylor Ham. It should be the other way around.

 * I was born and raised in Trenton, I still live in the area, and NO ONE I know around here calls pork roll Taylor Ham. (As a side note, I happen to prefer Case's, but that's a different story)
 * My best guess is someone from North Jersey wrote this, where Taylor is the most popular brand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.48.21 (talk • contribs) 15:15, August 24, 2007

My mom is from New Jersey and we have always called it taylor ham instead of pork roll and in my opinion taylor ham just sounds more appetizing. Pork roll sounds like some fatty thing that overweight people shove into their large mouths while they lay on their couches drinking beer and eating greasy potato chips and watching nascar. It also sounds like the fat rolls of a pig that they rip off, shove in a car board box they found in a dumpster, and put on the shelf in the grocery store for all the fat lards in our country to buy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.83.94.138 (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC) -- I'd never heard of Taylor Ham until I moved to North Jersey, but I HAD heard of pork roll while growing up in Cape May County. But I have another question about this article: Since when is Morris County a part of Central Jersey? It north of me and I'm definitely North Jersey, these days. Such references, along with the mixed up redirect, make me question the validity of this article. Olibear (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC) olibear —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Requested move
Pork roll is in far more common usage and taylor ham is just one brand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foodmarket (talk • contribs) 03:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is like "copy machine" redirecting to Xerox, or "dvr" redirecting to Tivo. Somebody plz fix!66.173.161.10 (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I am from somerset county, northern edge of what could be considered central jersey, yet people as far north as I live still call it pork roll. It's only in the northernmost few counties that calling it taylor ham is common. As pork roll is the more common usage, it should be the title of the article with taylor ham linking to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quasar J (talk • contribs) 16:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Agree When I grew up in Bergen county (definitely North Jersey) the school lunch frequently featured "Taylor Ham" and nobody called it pork roll.  In Philly, where I live now, it's always "pork roll".  At the supermarket, the generic products are always "pork roll", but Taylor brand is always available and sometimes Trenton brand too.   The first rule of WP:NAME is to Use the most easily recognized name, which seems to be pork roll.   WP:NAME provides no further guidance that I can tell.  I do think we ought to default to the generic name is a situation like this where it may not be entirely clear which is most widely used.  That being said... The article would need a minor rewrite to make sense under the new name. -- Austin Murphy (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I've done the rewrite, added a photo to show that even Taylor calls it pork roll, and added a reference as to why Taylor calls it pork roll. It's ready to be moved, but needs admin help. -- Austin Murphy (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Actually you have the power to rename and redirect pages. Here is how to rename the page correctly.  It probably also makes sense after renaming to create a new Taylor Ham page that redirects to Pork Roll.  Information on setting up a redirect.  Give it a try if you want!  Jzerocsk (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

 * I've moved pages before, but in this case the destination page has a history with more than one edit due to a misspelling. I tried it.  If you can do the move, please do!  Moving will create the redirect automatically.  Apparently the admins are waiting 5 days for a discussion.  -- Austin Murphy (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Ahh didn't realize that. I guess we'll just have to wait it out.  Jzerocsk (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

✅ Parsecboy (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Parsecboy! (cool name BTW) -- Austin Murphy (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * can this conversation be revisited? Consensus on this move seems to only include two signed users. The first citation on this page used for support of the name directs to an expired webpage, and credible sources can be found for support of Taylor Ham as the proper title (see New York Times article) -- BrosefStalin 21:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see below, where I've started a new section. I'll respond to your comment here in that section as well. --Fru1tbat (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Uses in sandwiches tag
I added that tag, as well as the "dubious" tag because the information is tedious at best. I don't know how one would go about citing such specific claims, and why anyone would care. Also, the one sentence about some guy in Jersey and his alleged renown with lunch meat is cause for concern. As the person sounds living, we need to worry about slander. One could argue the statement is merely a sort of advertising, and should be removed accordingly. On the other hand, it could be slanderous. Saying a guy is renowned for his sausage skills is just a bit suggestive. My mind can't be the only one in the gutter after reading that. So at least, we need a lot of cleanup. Also, if this article gets integrated into the "pork roll" article, it's fine with me. Taylor ham is a Philly/Jersey specialty, and most people around here ask for it by name. It warrants a mention in the "pork roll" article anyway, so why not merge them?72.92.19.123 (talk) 05:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Swatch Rocket
Wha? A quick google search for "swatch rocket" and hoagie yields 5 results, 2 of which are unrelated, two were this article, and one was a Facebook post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.40.7 (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Spam Roll
This article is filled with some spam in addition to pork roll. The preparation section just randomly turns into an advertisement for a pork roll festival:

Trenton, New Jersey held its Inaugural Trenton Pork Roll Festival on May 24, 2014 produced by Scott A. Miller, Pork Roll Productions LLC DBA The Pork Roll Festival.

TimeDoctor (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Pork roll. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20030928151657/http://www.porkrollxpress.com:80/newstore/pages.cfm?ID=13 to http://www.porkrollxpress.com/newstore/pages.cfm?ID=13

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Name revisited
Regarding the recent activity involving this article's name, I'd like to point out the ref added by User:Pawnkingthree: https://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2016/06/results_of_our_great_pork_roll_vs_taylor_ham_battle_divide_nj.html, which contains a few key points relevant to the name debate: Also note the earlier discussion on this page, which decided on "pork roll" as it was the more generic name, given the otherwise even split. The whole North Jersey vs. South Jersey thing is fun and all, but for the sake of stability here, I think we should stick with the current name, and focus on the quality of the article, not whether the title is what our "team" calls it or not. --Fru1tbat (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "We analyzed the results in a number of ways and found that the seemingly even divide between Taylor ham and pork roll is no myth - New Jersey is almost dead evenly split on the issue."
 * "... pork roll, which is the technical term for the product in the federal government's eyes."
 * User:BrosefStalin mentioned a NYT article above: The way I see it, the author barely leans toward "Taylor Ham" (while using both terms interchangeably), and regardless of how reliable the NYT is, given that the article doesn't actually discuss the correctness of the name, it's not a very good source for the correctness of the name. --Fru1tbat (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I think a major issue here is that the article suggested by :User:Fru1tbat is simply a survey of regional differences. I'm reluctant of relying on that source given that it also includes a rationale (described as a more refined analysis) for declaring Taylor Ham the correct name: "Under this more refined analysis, Taylor ham emerges with 4.56 million people to pork roll's 4.30 million."

Instead, I propose we look to sources like Marc Mappen, the former Executive Director of the New Jersey Historical Commission, who created a series, [|Jerseyana] for the New York Times. This column includes the [|name and origin of the product], Taylor Ham. These are the experts we should rely on. -- BrosefStalin (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

 * "Refined" there just means "applying more math", not "more correct". You're re-linking the exact same NYT article I discussed in my second comment above, and while it discusses the origin, like I said (among other things), it does not discuss the correctness, or provide any real insight into which one we should use as the title here. "Pork roll" is both the more generic and official name for the food item, and I still see no good reason to move away from it. --Fru1tbat (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure where this conclusion is from. If this were math, refined would suggest less data. A more common definition of refined is "more accurate." My broader point is that we don't have articles to cite correctness. The survey you linked to suggests that Taylor Ham is more accurate. Usage by New Jersey experts suggests that Taylor Ham is the default. What are you citing? -- BrosefStalin (talk)23:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * From my personal experience, as a northern Jersey resident, there really is a north/south divide - Taylor ham in north Jersey, pork roll in the south. The nj.com piece is just a bit of fun and shouldn’t be used to determine which is more accurate. I see no reason to fight over the article’s title - it seems to have been Pork roll for some time - and note the regional difference. Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments Pawnkingthree, and I wholeheartedly agree (however it may appear otherwise). --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Valoem, do we really need another article called Taylor Pork Roll? This seems unnecessarily confusing to me. Information on the company can be contained in this article (Pork roll). Taylor ham should redirect here, not to your article.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm also confused as to why this is necessary. It struck me as a POV fork when I first saw it, but maybe I was too quick to judge. It doesn't seem like the company is quite notable enough outside of the main topic here to have an article to itself. --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is absolutely important. Taylor Ham is in fact a notable brand of pork roll. In North Jersey, the term Taylor Ham is misapplied to all pork roll. This shows the actual term Taylor Ham and its origins. It is also the first pork roll producer, generating $200,000 in 1894 ($5 million inflation adjusted) and has been cited as "one of the most important of Trenton's commercial interests". The brand owned multiple stores in the 1950s. It has received significant coverage. A merge with pork roll is incorrect, while all Taylor Ham is pork roll, not all pork roll is Taylor Ham. Many companies produce pork roll such as Case's Pork Roll therefore it warrants separate articles. Valoem talk contrib 16:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Absolutely important" is a pretty big overstatement. Taylor is prominently included in the pork roll article.  Expanding the info about Taylor the company in the pork roll article would be fine.  Forking the article is just a lame partisan attempt to highlight one producer of a regional food product over the others.
 * I thought we had the issue settled in 2009 and nothing has changed since then. While the term "Taylor Ham" remains in common usage, there is literally no product for sale by that name in the USA.  Taylor has labeled their product as "Taylor Pork Roll" for over 100 years.  The idea that there is any meaningful difference between "taylor ham" and "pork roll" is just yet another manufactured "debate" intended to stir the pot.  This fork was poorly thought out, confuses the issue and should be reverted.   --Austin Murphy (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Taylor Pork Roll is a notable brand of pork roll. The brand passes WP:NCORP and the article is therefore notable. We do not redirect brands to there products which is why we cover companies and brands as individual articles. This is not a fork, one is about pork roll the product, the other is about Taylor Pork RolL, the brand. Merging the content to pork roll would give the company undue weight in an article about pork roll. Valoem talk contrib 11:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

recipes

 * Pork roll martini ?!?! This can't be serious. Austin Murphy (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Flying Fish Exit 7 Pork Roll porter apparently this one is serious. Austin Murphy (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Taylor ham ice cream is about to conquer the world. Okay, maybe just New Jersey also apparently serious. Austin Murphy (talk) 12:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Dodgy sourcing
There are a bunch of sources that are bad, here. There's dead hyperlink to an anonymous posting on a WWW forum. There's a "Sausage King" history that doesn't support what the text in the article says. There's an anonymous and not fact checked self-submitted post to a food company's comments page. I think that some of the affected content can be re-sourced to some of the better sources, like the Genovese and Edelstein ones, and the Susan Sprague Yeske book, which are fairly lengthy and might have these details, so I haven't zapped it. Uncle G (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have fixed this, mostly. Some unsourced portions remain.  Uncle G (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pork roll


text:
The Gambler (Prokofiev)

The Gambler (Russian: Игрок — Igrok in transliteration) is an opera in four acts by Sergei Prokofiev to a Russian libretto by the composer, based on the 1866 story of the same name by Fyodor Dostoyevsky.

Prokofiev had decided on this story as an operatic subject in 1914, and the conductor Albert Coates, of the Mariinsky Theatre, encouraged Prokofiev to compose this opera and assured him of a production at that theatre. Prokofiev wrote the opera in piano score between November 1915 and April 1916, and completed the orchestration in January 1917. Vsevolod Meyerhold was engaged as stage director. However, in the wake of the 1917 February Revolution, that production never occurred.

Performance history
The opera did not receive its first performance until 1929, after it had been extensively revised (in 1927), at the Théâtre Royal de la Monnaie, Brussels. Prokofiev prepared an orchestral suite based on the opera in 1931 (see below).

The Bolshoi Opera performed the opera at the Metropolitan Opera (The Met) in New York City in 1975, but the Met did not mount its own first production until March 2001.

The original version of the opera was finally staged in 2001 at the Bolshoi Theatre, Moscow, conducted by Gennady Rozhdestvensky.

Synopsis

 * Place: Roulettenburg, a fictional European spa resort
 * Time: The 1860s

Act 1
In the Grand Hotel garden, Alexei, tutor to the General's family, meets Polina, the General's ward, who is in debt to the Marquis. Alexei loves Polina, and informs her that he observed her directions to pawn her jewelry and gamble with the funds. However, he lost the money. The General is enamoured of the much younger demimondaine Blanche, and enters with her, the Marquis and Mr Astley, an Englishman. When asked about his losses, Alexei says he lost his own savings. He is chided that someone of his modest income should not gamble, but Alexei dismisses the idea of saving money with a caustic diatribe. Astley is impressed and invites Alexei to tea. The General then receives a telegram from "Babulenka" (literally a diminutive of 'grandmother'; she is, in fact, the General's aunt and Polina's grandmother) in Moscow. The General is hoping that Babulenka will die soon so that he can inherit her money and marry Blanche.

Polina is frustrated that she cannot repay her debts to the Marquis. While Alexei continues to protest that he loves her, she wonders if he has any other interest than greed. The General interrupts their conversation. Polina challenges Alexei to prove his love, and to see if he would truly do anything for her, by making a pass at a German Baroness sitting in the park. Alexei does this, to the anger of the Baron. In the ensuing fuss, the Baron and Baroness leave.

Act 2
In the hotel lobby, the General reproaches Alexei for his actions. Alexei is unrepentant, upon which the General dismisses him as his family tutor. The General then tries to obtain the help of the Marquis in preventing any appearance of a scandal. Mr. Astley enters, and explains to Alexei the General's concerns. Blanche had earlier asked the Baron for a loan, which upset the Baroness. Because of the high social status of the Baron and Baroness, the General is keen to avoid any sense of impropriety. Astley further explains that the General cannot propose to Blanche until he receives his share of the inheritance from Babulenka. Alexei begins to think that once Polina receives her own share of the inheritance, the Marquis will attempt to win her over.

The Marquis appears on the General's behalf, to try to mollify Alexei's behaviour. Alexei is contemptuous to the Marquis, until the Marquis produces a note from Polina, which calls on Alexei to stop behaving like a schoolboy. Alexei accuses him of making Polina write the letter and leaves in anger. The Marquis tells the General and Blanche that he was successful in subduing Alexei.

The General predicts Babulenka's death that same evening, but immediately afterward, her voice is heard, as she has arrived at the hotel, in good health. She greets Alexei and Polina with some affection, but at once she sees through the General and the others. She says that she has overcome her illness and plans to recuperate, and gamble, at the spa.

Act 3
At the casino, Babulenka has been losing her money at the roulette tables, and ignoring all pleas to stop. The General is despondent and sees his chances with Blanche diminish. After the Marquis tells just how much Babulenka has lost, the General suggests to summon the police but The Marquis dissuades him. Alexei arrives, and the General and the Marquis ask for his help to halt Babulenka's gambling losses. Prince Nilsky, another potential suitor to Blanche, then arrives and further enumerates Babulenka's losses. The General collapses, distraught, and then runs into the casino. Blanche departs with Nilsky. Alexei wonders of what will happen with Polina's family, after Babulenka's financial losses. Babulenka, exhausted and depleted of funds, wants to go home to Moscow. Babulenka asks Polina to come with her, but declines. The General bewails Babulenka's losses and his own loss of Blanche to Nilsky.

Act 4
In his hotel room, Alexei finds Polina, who has a letter from the Marquis. The Marquis says he is selling the General's properties mortgaged to him, but will forgive fifty thousand for Polina's sake, after which he will consider their relationship over. Polina feels this paying her off as an insult and wish she had fifty thousand to fling at Marquis's face. Alexei is deliriously pleased that Polina has turned to him for assistance.

Rushing to the casino, Alexei has a run of good luck, winning twenty times in a row and breaking the bank. After an entr'acte, the other patrons continue to talk about Alexei's run. Alexei returns to his room, yet he continues to hear the voices of the croupiers and the other gamblers. He then becomes aware of Polina who has been waiting for him. He offers her funds to pay the Marquis back. She refuses and asks whether he really loves her. When Alexei gives her the money, she tosses it back in his face and runs out. The opera ends with Alexei alone in the room, recalling obsessively his success at the tables.

Recordings

 * Revised version (Melodiya CD 10 01271): Vladimir Makhov, Gennadiy Troitskiy, Nina Polyakova, Tamara Antipova; All-Union Radio Opera Chor, Symphony Orchestra of All-Union Radio and Television, Gennady Rozhdestvensky, conductor (1963 recording)
 * Revised version (Philips 454 559): Nikolai Gassiev, Ljubov Kazarnovskaya, Marianna Tarassova, Valery Lebed, Sergey Aleksashkin, Vladimir Galusin, Elena Obraztsova, Alexander Shubin, Andrei Khramtsov, Elena Mirtova, Erik Eglit, Evgeny Kochergin, Gennadi Bezzubenkov, Gennady Anikin, Gregory Zastavny, Lia Shevtzova, Liubov Sokolova, Liudmilla Kannunnikova, Olga Kondina, Sergei Naida, Sergei Yukhmanov, Vladimir Zhivopistsev, Yevgeny Fedotov, Yuri Dolgopolov, Yuri Zhikalov; Kirov Orchestra of the Mariinsky Theatre; Valery Gergiev, conductor (1996 recording)
 * Original version (Exton OVCL-00155): Mikhail Urusov, Olga Guryakova, Leonid Zimnenko, Elena Manistina, Pavel Kudryavchenko, Vladislav Verestnikov, Evgenia Segeniuk; Soloists of the Bolshoi Opera; The Bolshoi Theatre Orchestra; Gennady Rozhdestvensky, conductor (2001 recording)
 * Video (UITV; Kultur in the USA): Misha Didyk (Alexei); Kristīne Opolais (Polina); Vladimir Ognovenko (General); Stefania Toczyska (Babulenka); Stephan Rügamer (Marquis); Sylvia de la Muela (Blanche); Viktor Rud (Mr. Astley); Staatskapelle Berlin; Daniel Barenboim, conductor (2008 recording)
 * Video (Mariinsky 0536): Sergei Aleksashkin (General); Tatiana Pavlovskaya (Polina); Vladimir Galuzin (Alexei); Nikolai Gassiev (Marquis); Alexander Gergalov (Mr Astley); Nadezhda Serdyuk (Mlle Blanche); Andrei Popov (Prince Nilsky); Oleg Sychev (Baron Wurmerhelm); Andrei Spekhov (Potapych); Mariinsky Orchestra; Valery Gergiev, conductor (2010 recording)

Suite: Four Portraits and a Dénouement from The Gambler, op. 49
Prokofiev produced an orchestral suite from the opera in 1931. The four portraits are Alexei, Babulenka, the General and Polina; the dénouement is not, in fact, the last scene of the opera, but represents Alexei's winning streak at roulette. As The Gambler is not a number opera, none of the characters has any extended arias; Prokofiev, therefore, gathered the basic materials for the suite by tearing up the score and heaping the pages relating to each character together in piles.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: The Gambler (Prokofiev)


text:
United States v. Alkhabaz

United States v. Alkhabaz, 104 F.3d 1492 (6th Cir. 1997) was a case brought against University of Michigan undergraduate Abraham Jacob Alkhabaz, a.k.a. Jake Baker, related to several incidents regarding snuff stories that he wrote while he was a student at the University of Michigan. Alkhabaz was charged with violation of 18 U.S.C. s 875(c), communicating via interstate or foreign commerce threats to kidnap or injure another person. The case raised immediate First Amendment concerns and is considered an important one in the history of cyber law.

Background
Jake Baker (born March 1974; given name Abraham Jacob Alkhabaz) was a student at the University of Michigan College of Literature, Science, and Arts.

In October 1994, Jake Baker started submitting pornographic stories depicting fantasies of rape, torture, and murder to the alt.sex.stories Usenet group. On January 9, 1995, Baker submitted a story to alt.sex.stories detailing a fantasy about the rape, torture, and murder of one of his classmates using her real name; the prosecution and both the district court and appellate court used the pseudonym "Jane Doe" to protect her privacy. Baker's story was brought to the attention of University of Michigan authorities and he was arrested, determined to be a threat to the subject of his story as well as the rest of the student population.

During the serving of a search warrant upon Baker's computer, University of Michigan police found several stories depicting rape, torture, and murder genre favored by Baker. They also found emails to a Canadian by the name of Arthur Gonda, depicting rape, torture, and murder. Their communications also began detailing a plan for the two men to meet and engage in a real-life depiction of their fantasies to rape, torture, and murder.

On February 9, 1995, Baker was arrested by the FBI and he was later indicted for six counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), which prohibits interstate communications containing threats to kidnap or injure another person. Five of the counts were determined by emails between Baker and Gonda. The sixth count was determined from the story about "Jane Doe."

Bail hearing
The Magistrate Judge ordered Baker detained as a danger to the community and a United States District Court affirmed his detention. Upon Baker's motion to be released on bond, this Court ordered a psychological evaluation. When the evaluation concluded that Baker posed no threat to the community, this Court ordered Baker's release.

Case resolution
One of the counts - communicating a threat by publishing the story about "Jane Doe" on the Internet - was dropped against Baker. On June 21, 1995, the case against Baker was dismissed by Judge Avern Cohn due to lack of evidence that Baker would actually act out his fantasies. The Government appealed this decision, and on January 29, 1997, the 6th U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the lower court.

Controversy
Free speech advocates state that the Government violated Jake Baker's First Amendment right to free speech by charging him with a crime for writing stories. Others defended the Government's case by stating that Baker's stories were filth, snuff, and that Baker was intending to act on them.

Baker stated that his stories were created as a form of therapy - so that he could act out his anger in a "harmless", legal way. Baker also stated that he was role playing within his emails to Gonda, and that he did not intend to act on his fantasies.

This case was not only about obscenity and threats, but it was being watched by Internet advocates, namely that his stories were published over a wide medium, and that since the Internet is a medium beyond borders, that state even federal level laws were not able to be applied to it. Baker was charged with communicating a threat over interstate lines - a charge that may have not been able to hold, other than the fact that Baker published his stories and corresponded over the Internet.

It has also been said that this case set a precedent for free speech on the Internet.

Timeline

 * January 20, 1995 - DPS officers contact Baker. Baker waives his Miranda rights and admits to writing and posting the stories. DPS officers search Baker's room and account with his permission, finding an unpublished story and the e-mail conversations.
 * February 2, 1995 - University President Duderstadt suspends Baker on the grounds that he is an immediate threat to the woman named in his story.
 * February 9, 1995 - FBI arrests Baker on basis of his stories and e-mail to Gonda. Bail is denied on the belief that he is too dangerous to release, as determined by a judge. Baker charged with violating 18 U.S.C. s 875(c).
 * February 10, 1995 - After a detention hearing, Baker is again denied bail by a different judge. A defense appeal for bail bond is denied. Probable cause hearing scheduled for 2/17/95. Baker's lawyer appeals no-bail ruling to 6th Circuit Court in Cincinnati, Ohio.
 * February 15, 1995 - Baker indicted by grand jury, negating need for probable cause hearing.
 * February 17, 1995 - Baker arraigned, pleads not guilty.
 * March 7, 1995 - Baker's bond denied by 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.
 * March 9, 1995 - Baker released on $10,000 bond by Judge Avern Cohn.
 * March 15, 1995 - Baker charge based on story dropped, Baker charged with 5 counts based on e-mail with Gonda.
 * June 21, 1995 - Charges against Baker dismissed in a ruling by Judge Avern Cohn. Cohn cited lack of evidence that Baker would act out his fantasies.
 * July 19, 1995 - Government files "notice of intent to appeal" the dismissal of the indictment. Government now has less than 7 months to appeal the ruling.
 * November 21, 1995 - Government files appeal of dismissal. The United States Court of Appeals may take months to decide the case. If the appeal is successful, the case will be brought back to the District Court for trial.
 * August 16, 1996 - 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals hears the government's appeal.
 * January 29, 1997 - The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the dismissal of charges against Baker, ruling that the e-mail messages did not constitute a credible threat.

Cites
This case has been cited in various cases regarding free speech protection and the Internet.

title: United States v. Alkhabaz


text:
ELP Communications

ELP Communications (formerly known as T.A.T. Communications Company, Embassy Television, Embassy Telecommunications, and Embassy Communications) was an American television production company that originally began in 1974.

Beginning
ELP Communications was originally formed in 1974 as T.A.T. Communications Company when Norman Lear joined up with former talent agent Jerry Perenchio, a year before Bud Yorkin ended his partnership with Lear. "T.A.T." stood for the Yiddish phrase "Tuchus Affen Tisch" (תּחת אויפֿן טיש), which meant "Putting one's on the line."

The first sitcom to be produced by T.A.T. Communications was The Jeffersons, which was spun off from the sitcom All in the Family in 1975. The company made its syndicated project with Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman through Rhodes Productions (a division of Filmways), only for the latter to withdraw support in order to get Norman Lear to launch its own syndicated unit.

Acquisition of Avco Embassy and rename
Television producer Norman Lear and his business partner Jerry Perenchio bought Avco Embassy Pictures Corporation in January 1982 and decided to drop the name "Avco" from the name to bring back the name Embassy Pictures and T.A.T. Communications Co. was renamed as Embassy Communications, Inc.

The television division was renamed as Embassy Television, a division name for his shows by the former T.A.T. Communications such as The Jeffersons, One Day at a Time, and The Facts of Life. More shows were produced by Embassy Television such as the first two under the name: Square Pegs and Silver Spoons. The latter show ran five seasons, while the former ran one but developed a cult following. Who's the Boss? was piloted later in 1983 until airing in 1984. Embassy Television also produced Diff'rent Strokes's final season from Tandem Productions, which was eventually operated by Embassy.

Embassy also held the TV rights to a majority of the Embassy theatrical library, syndicated under the umbrella title Embassy Night at the Movies. Embassy Telecommunications was the television distribution arm of Embassy Television. They distributed off-net syndicated shows by Embassy Television and those by Tandem Productions and T.A.T. Communications. Tandem's PITS Films was folded into Embassy Telecommunications.

Coca-Cola era
Lear and Perenchio sold Embassy Communications (included Tandem Productions) to The Coca-Cola Company (then-current owners of Columbia Pictures) for $485 million on June 18, 1985. After the sale, Lear, Perenchio, nor Bud Yorkin were no longer involved with Embassy or Tandem. A month later in July 1985, CBS canceled The Jeffersons and Diff'rent Strokes was already canceled by NBC. The latter was later moved to ABC. During the fall, a new Embassy sitcom called 227 debuted on NBC.

A year later, Embassy Communications became the only television banner as Embassy's television divisions (Embassy Television, Embassy Telecommunications, and Tandem Productions) were consolidated into the holding company.

When ABC canceled Diff'rent Strokes, the brand name Tandem Productions became dormant but renamed active as an in-name-only division. On November 24, 1986, Coca-Cola fused Embassy's television operations including the movie packages (Embassy Night at the Movies, Embassy II and Embassy III) with Columbia Pictures Television; the combined company became Columbia/Embassy Television, though Columbia and Embassy continued to produce and distribute programs under their separate names. During that formation, Coca-Cola took Columbia and Embassy out of the first-run syndication business and focused them on first-run network and off-net syndication programming. This was also the formation of Coca-Cola Television when Coke regrouped Columbia Pictures Television, Embassy Communications, and Merv Griffin Enterprises. Married... with Children was the next—and as it would transpire, last—successful sitcom by Embassy Communications, debuting as part of the fledgling Fox Broadcasting Company's first primetime lineup in 1987.

Columbia Pictures Entertainment and Sony Pictures Entertainment eras
On December 21, 1987, Coca-Cola sold its Columbia Pictures entertainment businesses to TriStar Pictures, Inc. and renamed the Tri-Star holding company as "Columbia Pictures Entertainment" for $3.1 billion. Columbia/Embassy Television then merged with TriStar Television to form a new version of Columbia Pictures Television. Embassy Communications then became ELP (Embassy Lear Pictures) Communications. Still-running and newer Embassy shows would begin to use the Columbia Pictures Television logo in January 1988 but would use the ELP copyright in the credits in February 1988. Embassy Night at the Movies was renamed as Columbia Night at the Movies. On November 8, 1989, Columbia Pictures Entertainment was sold to Sony and renamed as Sony Pictures Entertainment on August 7, 1991.

The final long running show to be produced by Embassy Television, as ELP Communications, was Beakman's World in 1992. In February 1994, SPE merged Columbia Pictures Television and the newly relaunched TriStar Television to become Columbia TriStar Television. All series by CPT, TriStar, ELP, and Merv Griffin were brought under the banner (though most shows would not begin to use CTT's logo until around 1997). Beakman's World was cancelled in 1998 and ELP Communications became an in-name only unit of Columbia TriStar Television.

Today, television distribution rights to both Embassy's television and theatrical libraries are now owned by Sony Pictures Television. Also, all shows from T.A.T. Communications Company to ELP Communications are all copyrighted by ELP Communications.

Studios and tapings by ELP Communications

 * The Jeffersons at CBS Television City (1975), Metromedia Square (1975–1982) and Universal Studios by Compact Video (1982–1985)
 * Hot l Baltimore at ABC Television Center (1975)
 * One Day at a Time at CBS Television City (1975), Metromedia Square (1975–1982) and Universal Studios by Compact Video (1982–1984)
 * The Dumplings at The Burbank Studios (1976)
 * All's Fair at Metromedia Square (1976–1977)
 * Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman at Metromedia Square (1976–1977)
 * A Year at the Top (1977)
 * Fernwood 2 Night at Metromedia Square (1977)
 * America 2-Night at Metromedia Square (1978)
 * Hello, Larry at Metromedia Square (1979–1980)
 * McGurk: A Dog's Life (Pilot) (1979)
 * The Baxters at Metromedia Square (1979–1981)
 * The Facts of Life at Metromedia Square (1979–1982), Universal Studios by Compact Video (1982–1985) and Sunset Gower Studios (1985–1988)
 * Palmerstown, U.S.A. at Metromedia Square (1980–1981)
 * Silver Spoons at Metromedia Square for pilot (1982), Universal Studios by Compact Video (1982–1985) and Sunset Gower Studios (1985–1987)
 * Square Pegs on location (1982–1983)
 * Who's the Boss? at Universal Studios by Compact Video (1983–1985) and ABC Television Center (1985–1992)
 * a.k.a. Pablo at Universal Studios by Compact Video (1984)
 * Double Trouble at Universal Studios by Compact Video Season 1, C.C.R. Video Corporation, Sun Television, Compact Video Season 2 (1984–1985)
 * E/R at Universal Studios by Compact Video for Pilot, by One Pass Film and Video (1984–1985) by Sun Television (1985) Quality Video (1985)
 * Diff'rent Strokes at ABC Television Center (1985-1986, final season only)
 * 227 at Metromedia Square (1985–1986), Fox Television Center (1986–1987), and Sunset Gower Studios (1987–1990)
 * The Charmings at ABC Television Center (1987–1988)
 * Married... with Children at ABC Television Center (1987–1988), Sunset Gower Studios (1988–1994) and Sony Pictures Studios (1994–1997)
 * Everything's Relative at Unitel Video Inc. New York (1987)
 * Free Spirit at ABC Television Center (1989–1990)
 * Phenom at ABC Television Center (1993–1994)

Theatrical release

 * Blue Collar (1978, as T.A.T. Communications Company and distributed by Universal Pictures)

title: ELP Communications


text:
NWA Missouri Heavyweight Championship

The NWA Missouri Heavyweight Championship was a singles championship in the National Wrestling Alliance's St. Louis Wrestling Club and Central States Wrestling promotions in the 1970s and 1980s. It was considered a "stepping stone" to the NWA World Heavyweight Championship (although only Race, Terry Funk and Kerry Von Erich made it; Gene Kiniski, Dory Funk, Jr.,Jack Brisco and Ric Flair were already former World Champions upon winning the Missouri title). A version of the Missouri Championship has been documented to exist in 1899, 1921, 1933 to 1934, 1937, 1947, 1950, and 1954 to 1955, but it was only in 1972 that a serious championship was established. Prior to the creation of the NWA the championship was not recognized outside of the region and used by regional promoters, it is even possible that competing Missouri Heavyweight Championships existed. The championship was abandoned in 1986, as the Central States promotion was being consolidated under Jim Crockett Promotions in order to counter the World Wrestling Federation's national expansion.

title: NWA Missouri Heavyweight Championship


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rowf and Snitter

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was merge/redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rowf and Snitter
Two main characters from a book. I suggest to merge them to The Plague Dogs, so the information does not scatter all around in many different articles. --Conti|✉ 20:03, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge. -R. fiend 00:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge, but shouldn't Rowf redirect to the Muppet Show? Radiant_ >|< 09:32, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * That would be Rowlf. but you have a point; I'd be willing to bet that most people typing Rowf are looking for Rowlf. -R. fiend 14:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .