conversations.from: human
conversations.value: What is a plot for a book about Hancock, Sid, British entitled Twelve Angry Men?
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: Twelve Angry Men (Hancock's Half Hour): Hancock and Sid are members of a jury in the trial of a man - John Harrison Peabody - accused of stealing some jewellery.\nHancock has been elected jury foreman and continually interrupts the proceedings.\nHe asks if the jury can see the evidence for a second time, to which the judge agrees.\nHancock tries on one of the exhibits - a diamond ring - but is unable to remove it.\nNumerous attempts to remove the ring prove futile, so he and the other jury members have to retire for their deliberations with the ring still stuck on Hancock\'s finger.\nIn the jury room, Hancock finds he is the only jury member voting for a not guilty verdict, the other members being keen to bring the case to a conclusion as quickly as possible.\nSid is also in favour of finding the accused guilty, before changing his mind when Hancock mentions that the jurors are being paid 30 shillings a day for their services.\nBy using appeals to sentiment, emotional blackmail and talk of the fine tradition of British justice ("Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you.\n") Hancock gradually manages to persuade all the other jurors to change their minds in favour of a not guilty verdict.\nOne of the last jurors to be persuaded only reluctantly follows the consensus, and in doing so warns Hancock that the freed man - if he is actually guilty - might once again embark on a life of burgling houses, possibly including Hancock\'s.\nThe juror\'s words give Hancock second thoughts, and he has an abrupt change of opinion in favour of finding the accused guilty.\nThe rest of the jury immediately do likewise (though Sid only does so on condition of being paid 30 shillings compensation by each of the other jury members, to compensate for "lost earnings") and they leave to deliver their verdict to the court, reflecting on how the values of British justice have triumphed.\nBack in the courtroom, Hancock announces the jury\'s verdict.\nAs they are about to leave, the judge reminds Hancock that he has still not returned the diamond ring that was stuck on his finger.\nHancock realises he has lost the ring, possibly when he shook hands with the other jurors.\nThe episode ends with all twelve jury members appearing in the dock accused of theft, with Hancock - still acting as spokesperson for the ex-jurors - pleading guilty on behalf of all of them.
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Add another sentence about \nDid.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: Twelve Angry Men (Hancock's Half Hour): Hancock and Sid are members of a jury in the trial of a man - John Harrison Peabody - accused of stealing some jewellery. \nHancock has been elected jury foreman and continually interrupts the proceedings. \nHe asks if the jury can see the evidence for a second time, to which the judge agrees. \nHancock tries on one of the exhibits - a diamond ring - but is unable to remove it. \nNumerous attempts to remove the ring prove futile, so he and the other jury members have to retire for their deliberations with the ring still stuck on Hancock\'s finger. \nIn the jury room, Hancock finds he is the only jury member voting for a not guilty verdict, the other members being keen to bring the case to a conclusion as quickly as possible. \nSid is also in favour of finding the accused guilty, before changing his mind when Hancock mentions that the jurors are being paid 30 shillings a day for their services. \nBy using appeals to sentiment, emotional blackmail and talk of the fine tradition of British justice ("Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you. \nDid she die in vain. \n") Hancock gradually manages to persuade all the other jurors to change their minds in favour of a not guilty verdict. \nOne of the last jurors to be persuaded only reluctantly follows the consensus, and in doing so warns Hancock that the freed man - if he is actually guilty - might once again embark on a life of burgling houses, possibly including Hancock\'s. \nThe juror\'s words give Hancock second thoughts, and he has an abrupt change of opinion in favour of finding the accused guilty. \nThe rest of the jury immediately do likewise (though Sid only does so on condition of being paid 30 shillings compensation by each of the other jury members, to compensate for "lost earnings") and they leave to deliver their verdict to the court, reflecting on how the values of British justice have triumphed. \nBack in the courtroom, Hancock announces the jury\'s verdict. \nAs they are about to leave, the judge reminds Hancock that he has still not returned the diamond ring that was stuck on his finger. \nHancock realises he has lost the ring, possibly when he shook hands with the other jurors. \nThe episode ends with all twelve jury members appearing in the dock accused of theft, with Hancock - still acting as spokesperson for the ex-jurors - pleading guilty on behalf of all of them.
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: What is the first four paragraphs for this book?
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: Twelve Angry Men
  He was an immigrant kid. He never spent a day in school. He roamed the country during the Depression as a hobo and migrant worker. He wrote that some fellow from the Works Progress Administration rode into his hobo camp sometime in the thick of the Depression and said: "Who wants to work?" The volunteers were put on a flatbed truck and hauled some miles up into the mountains in California.
  Hoffer wrote that that is just what they did. There was enough talent and know-how on the truck, he wrote, to've built not only that road, but to have built America. For that, he said, was quite exactly how America was built—a group of reasonably intelligent workers took a simple plan, formed an ad-hoc group, and used their common sense and group spirit to execute it well.
  And then there is the America we participate in—that fairly friendly and reasonable group of diverse interests and talents, happy to pitch in, the America of "us." We see and participate in this group at the Little League, the Rotary, the Shul or Church, the block party, the sports bar—we speak its language in the conversation we strike up with the stranger in the airline departure lounge, in the chat with the other parents on the way to school, in the office jokes we share. This nonabstract, this real America, is a rather pleasant place. When we are not being actively divided—by religion or politics—we rest here in the default position of unity. Over time, we see, the reasonable often find a way to unite the seemingly irreconcilable claims of passion.
  This process is the essence of our system of jurisprudence. The jury trial enshrines our belief in and our experience that the multitude of the wise is the treasure of the land. Most people, I believe, initially shun jury duty. The summons always seems to come at the least opportune time, and one might go kicking and screaming.
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Delete the last sentence.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: Twelve Angry Men
  He was an immigrant kid. He never spent a day in school. He roamed the country during the Depression as a hobo and migrant worker. He wrote that some fellow from the Works Progress Administration rode into his hobo camp sometime in the thick of the Depression and said: "Who wants to work?" The volunteers were put on a flatbed truck and hauled some miles up into the mountains in California.
  Hoffer wrote that that is just what they did. There was enough talent and know-how on the truck, he wrote, to've built not only that road, but to have built America. For that, he said, was quite exactly how America was built—a group of reasonably intelligent workers took a simple plan, formed an ad-hoc group, and used their common sense and group spirit to execute it well.
  And then there is the America we participate in—that fairly friendly and reasonable group of diverse interests and talents, happy to pitch in, the America of "us." We see and participate in this group at the Little League, the Rotary, the Shul or Church, the block party, the sports bar—we speak its language in the conversation we strike up with the stranger in the airline departure lounge, in the chat with the other parents on the way to school, in the office jokes we share. This nonabstract, this real America, is a rather pleasant place. When we are not being actively divided—by religion or politics—we rest here in the default position of unity. Over time, we see, the reasonable often find a way to unite the seemingly irreconcilable claims of passion.
  This process is the essence of our system of jurisprudence. The jury trial enshrines our belief in and our experience that the multitude of the wise is the treasure of the land. Most people, I believe, initially shun jury duty.
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: What is four more paragraphs?
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: FOREMAN: Well, I was figuring we'd take a five-minute break. I mean, the old man's in the bathroom...
  FOREMAN: It's up to you. Just let's remember we've got a first degree murder charge here. If we vote "guilty," we send the accused to the electric chair. That's mandatory.
  All right. This has to be a twelve-to-nothing vote either way. That's the law. OK, are we ready? All those voting "guilty" raise your hands.
  FOREMAN: Right. We have a job to do. Let's do it. Maybe if the gentleman who's disagreeing down there could tell us why. You know, tell us what he thinks—we could show him where he's probably mixed up.
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: What is the last four paragraphs?
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: That whole thing about hearing the boy yell? The phrase was "I'm gonna kill you." That's what he said. To his own father.
  I don't care what kind of man that was. It was his father. That goddamn rotten kid. I know him. What they're like. What they do to you. How they kill you every day. My God, don't you see? How come I'm the only one who sees? Jeez, I can feel that knife goin' in.
  The rain continues throughout the remainder of the play with occasional thunder and flashes of lightning
  In every corner of the world, on every subject under the sun, Penguin represents quality and variety—the very best in publishing today.
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Reverse the sentences.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: The rain continues throughout the remainder of the play with occasional thunder and flashes of lightning
  In every corner of the world, on every subject under the sun, Penguin represents quality and variety—the very best in publishing today.. My God, don't you see? How come I'm the only one who sees? Jeez, I can feel that knife goin' in. How they kill you every day. What they do to you. What they're like. I know him. That goddamn rotten kid. It was his father.
  I don't care what kind of man that was. To his own father." That's what he said.That whole thing about hearing the boy yell? The phrase was "I'm gonna kill you