HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jennings@lhotse.stortek.com (Jeff Jennings)
Subject: Re: Don't boycott all of Colorado
Followup-To: co.general,co.politics
Organization: Storage Tek
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:41:40 GMT

Steve Gombosi (sog@craycos.com) wrote:
: As Greg Woods pointed out,
: he's got a lifetime contract and can't be fired. He's also the highest-paid
: employee of the State of Colorado.
: 
: Steve

As much as I dislike McCartney, I can't let this go by.  McCartney was 
given a 15 year contract back in the late 80's.  This is pretty outrageous
in the coaching profession, but it is not a lifetime contract.  Just one
more legacy of Gordon Gee.

- jeff

--
Jeff Jennings              | Imagination is more important than knowledge.
Jeff_Jennings@stortek.com  |                     - Albert Einstein
Storage Tek - Iceberg      |
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: interesting thought (ammendment 2)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 02:26:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.235947.29751@col.hp.com> kary@col.hp.com (Dan Kary) writes:
>> I think you will be hard put to find an example where anyone has ever
>> successfully sued anyone for discrimination without a specific law to back them
>> up.

>I was thinking of the case of Keith Meinhold who was returned to work at Moffett
>Naval Air Station, by a court order, after being discharged from the Navy when
>he declared his homosexuality on national television.
>
>I know nothing of his case (other than the scant details above) but there must
>be some basis in law for him to have filed the case and to have received a court
>order.

Since the Navy is an agency of the federal government, this is a very
different situation: The government may not discriminate, but that
doesn't relate to discrimination by private citizens.

>Whatever basis Meinhold had to file his suit could be used
>by any homosexual in cases of discrimination in housing, employment, access to
>public accomodations, etc. 

While I don't know the details of Meinhold's suit, I suspect its basis
could be used only with respect to governmental denial of housing,
employment, etc...

                                            Frank Crary
                                            CU Boulder

Newsgroups: co.general
From: kary@col.hp.com (Dan Kary)
Subject: Re: interesting thought (ammendment 2)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 05:41:03 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella) writes:
> Frank Crary (fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU) wrote:
> : 
> : Protections for Christians are a slightly different matter, since
> : the First Amendment to the federal Constitution specifically
> : protects religous groups. Legally, whether or not they "deserve"
> : such protection isn't an issue: There is a specific and supreme
> : law on the subject.
> 
> It protects them from government interference; I don't see how anyone could
> possibly interpret it as protecting them against discrimination by private
> citizens or companies.
> 
> --
> Marc Sabatella
> marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com

Fascinating.  I've read amendment 2 several times and each time I read it
I see that it places limits on GOVERNMENT.  I don't see how anyone could   
possibly interpret it as something that gives private citizens or companies
permission to discriminate against anyone for any reason.

Dan Kary
-- 
"And that, my leige, is how we know the earth to be banana shaped."
Newsgroups: co.general,co.politics
From: fielden@spot.Colorado.EDU (j. a. fielden)
Subject: Re: Don't boycott all of Colorado
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:42:39 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.230811.7510@col.hp.com> dag@col.hp.com (David Geiser) writes:
>> McCartney personally. Exactly the opposite effect from what you want.
>> There is certainly no evidence that the University itself, or even the
>> athletic department, contributed to the support of #2, and the consequences
>> of expecting them to control what one of their employees does with his own 
>> money and on his own time are, if anything, scarier than the implications of 
>> #2.
>
>$DRIFT_ON
>The university can most certainly expect McCartney, who is a public figure and
>a representative of the university, to keep his public exposure pristine.  Not
>being publicly political is frequently part of that expectation and many times
>is explicitly expressed contractually.  Anybody out there know how to look it
>up in this particular case?
>$DRIFT_OFF
>
>Not buying tickets for the games is one of the most intelligent proposals
>presented.  It may not damage the university, and indeed that is probably not
>the goal, but it will certainly attract attention.  Imagine listening to
>national coverage of the game where the sportscasters describe the empty seats
>as a result of #2.  Extend this to Denver Bronco games or anything else that
>gets national coverage.  If you can't stay away, show up with a big banner
>that says:  #2 Sucks    or
>   Colorado for Family Values  or  Christians For Intolerance ?
>
>The wittier it is, the better chance of being broadcast.


Yeah, but all that would probably do  is increase the 
student athletic fee(currently $66 ayear). 
Newsgroups: co.general
From: freedman@cs.ColoState.EDU (keith freedman)
Subject: Re: BOYCOTT Purgatory-Durango
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:11:00 GMT
Reply-To: freedman@cs.ColoState.EDU
Organization: Colorado State University -=- Computer Science Dept.

In article 92Nov17080851@snow.boulder.ibm.com, ssh@snow.boulder.ibm.com (Steve Hultquist (347-3994)) writes:
>>>>>> On 17 Nov 92 01:16:55 GMT, fineman@tatertot.arc.nasa.gov (Charles Fineman) said:
>C> Nntp-Posting-Host: tatertot.arc.nasa.gov
>
>C> (Jim Puckett) writes:
>J> [stuff about a vacation]
>J>
>J>SHOW 'EM YOU CARE! BOYCOTT PURGATORY-DURANGO!!
>J>
>
>C> Y'know, my first instinct (not that I would necessarily follow through
>C> on it!) would be to go and protest somehow. You and your friends could
>C> wear triangles (color?) or where some a t-shirt with a statement of
>C> some significance on it. I think that is a better way (as opposed to
>C> just not showing up) for a relatively small group to make it's
>C> feelings known.
>
>C> 	Chuck
>
>Guys?  Guys!  He's going to be skiing there that week!  He doesn't want anyone
>else to show up!  He's suggesting people boycott that week so he has all the
>Colorado powder he can snort all to himself.  Get it?!  It was a *joke*!!!!!

Couldn't they still wear colored triangles?!  Perhaps a nice candlelight vigil
before sitting in the Hot Tub?!

---
Keith Freedman					Boycott Groomed Ski Runs
Colorado State University
Department of Computer Science
Systems Administration

Newsgroups: co.general,co.politics
From: woods@claven.ucar.edu (Greg Woods)
Subject: Re: Don't boycott all of Colorado
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR Boulder, CO
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:07:10 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.164747.25681@craycos.com> jrbd@craycos.com (James Davies) writes:
>Does the money get put in the general fund, or does it get spent on sports?
>What I learned at the University of Illinois was that donations to the
>football program never seem to make it out to the academic side of the
>university

That is probably true at CU as well, but the point I was making was that
it isn't fair to point to McCartney's salary as evidence of how much
we are spending (as state taxpayers) on CU football, without also pointing
out how much money is taken *in* by the football program.

>The standard argument is that they're good for the image of the university
>and promote donations to other departments, but this assertion is hard to
>prove.

I wouldn't try to argue for it, either. All I am arguing against is
the statement that we are spending lots of state government money 
on the CU football program.

--Greg
Newsgroups: co.general,csu.general
From: houlton@CS.ColoState.EDU (david houlton)
Subject: Lift ticket for Vail
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 22:43:36 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: Colorado State University, Computer Science Department

  I've got a voucher for one all-day adult lift ticket at Vail, valid 
  any time from now up till December 18th.  It doesn't look like I'll
  be able to use it, so if you're headed that way in the next month and
  you'd like a cheap(er) lift ticket...

  $30/obo

  Dave Houlton    houlton@cs.colostate.edu

Newsgroups: co.general,co.politics
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Constitution
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:47:41 GMT

In article <Bxvvo0.9zn@fc.sde.hp.com> marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com writes:
>: >If there was a constitutional
>: >amendment that said "People with an education from Mexico shall never be
>: >granted the federal exemption from literacy tests", do you think the Supreme
>: >Court would have upheld it?

>But just a little while ago you noted there was a big difference between not
>grantng protection and denying it.  Do you not think that distinction is
>relevant here?  The law about Puerto Ricans didn't explicitly deny the right in
>question to Mexicans; it left that door open.  A constitutional amendment that
>forbids Mexicans from achieving this strikes me as entirely different from
>simply not passing a law that gives it to them.

I'm sorry: I originally mis-read that question, and didn't catch the "never"...
As far as a removal of existing protections, there is a distinction but
not one that has been raised before the Supreme Court (to my limited 
knowledge.) That means it's anybody's guess how they would rule. I
suspect they would apply the "reasonable relationship test": Does the
law have a reasonable relationship to a valid state interest? If
so, they would uphold it. "Reasonable relationship", by the way, is
extremely vague and means, essentially, and half-credible excuse the
State's lawyer can dream up. In your hypothetical anti-Mexican 
amendment's case, "To reduce future unemployment by discouraging immigration"
would constitute a "reasonable relationship." Alternately, the Court
might subject the law to "strict scrutiny": Upholding the law only
is the state can prove that the law is the best and most direct way
to address its purpose. They might do this if the law in question effects
a "prefered freedom" (which include voting rights) and/or effects a 
protected minority (ethnic/cultural minorities and usually considered this.)
However, the current Court generally supports the doctorine of "judicial
restraint", meaning they prefer to avoid the "strict scrutiny" test as
much as they can. I rather doubt the hypothetical law, or Amendment 2,
could survive strict scrutiny; however a good lawyer for the State could
keep the matter on the level of reasonable relationships.

                                                         Frank Crary
                                                         CU Boulder

Newsgroups: co.general,co.politics
From: mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella)
Subject: Re: Constitution
Reply-To: marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:43:15 GMT

Frank Crary (fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU) wrote:
: 
: The law in question was a federal exemption from literacy tests (in
: order to vote) for anyone with a sixth-grade or better education in
: a Puerto Rican, spanish-speeking school. One of the objections
: was that this law denied equal protection to educated, speakers
: of Spanish, simply because they were not educated in Puerto Rico.
: The Court held that there a law did not have to deal with all
: forms of discrimination at once: It was acceptable to offer one
: group protection without offering another group the same protection.

OK, as a non-legal person, this still doesn't seem particularly relevant.
Obviously it is implicitly OK not to protect everyone equally - there are
laws protecting blacks, but not laws protecting left-handed people, and no one
has struck that down as constitutional.  If there was a constitutional
amendment that said "People with an education from Mexico shall never be
granted the federal exemption from literacy tests", do you think the Supreme
Court would have upheld it?

--
Amendment 2 - Shame On You, Colorado
--
Marc Sabatella
marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
--
a disgusted resident of the first state in history of the union
to enact a constitutional amendment that explicitly legalizes discrimination
against a particular minority
--
All opinions expressed herein are my personal ones
and do not necessarily reflect those of HP or anyone else.
Newsgroups: co.general
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Local beers (was: Info on local tavern.
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:35:43 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.162621.7034@advtech.uswest.com> mgooley@advtech.uswest.com (Mark. Gooley) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.153947.5567@ncar.ucar.edu> chris@chinook.atd.ucar.edu writes:
>>I have to disagree with Boulder Beer being undrinkable.  All of there
>>good beers are not available in bottle, so you have to go to the brewery
>>itself.  Also they only charge $2.25 for a 22oz beer and $4.50 for
>>pitchers and $6.35 for the half gallons.  They currently have an excellent
>>Bitter on tap.
>
>I'm the one he's disagreeing with.
>
>Opinions?  Does anyone else think that the bottled Boulder Beer products
>are bad, and are the ones they have on tap really better?


For some bizarre, unexplained reasons, both Walnut and Oasis beers give me
a *smashing* headache. I have always suspected formaldehyde, but am not
sure, as I keep forgetting to bring my pocket chemical analysis kit when I
go there.

Boulder beers are so sweet as to make my hair curl.  They strike me as
'sorority beers' as they have alcohol, so one can eventually get drunk,  and 
are syrupy sweet. 

Now if you want a *real* beer, Coors mega-litE is the way to go.  Made of 
100% natural Taiwanese rice, it really hits the spot if you are dying of
thirst.









-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: co.general
From: freedman@cs.ColoState.EDU (keith freedman)
Subject: Re: Suicide blamed on amendment
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:53:56 GMT
Reply-To: freedman@cs.ColoState.EDU
Organization: Colorado State University -=- Computer Science Dept.

Suicide blamed on WEAKNESS!!

There is NO way ANYONE can convince me that Suicide is anyones fault but the
person who committed it!!!

Regardless of what "reason" someone might give for doing such a thing, it is a CHOICE
that individual made all by themselves.

If they were too weak to stay alive and fight for their rights and rights of others
and other generations, then I certainly have NO pity for them.

Althought I do not advocate murder, it would have made a stronger statement for
them to kill a CFV person rather than themselves, but then again, two wrongs ...

---
Keith Freedman
Colorado State University
Department of Computer Science
Systems Administration

Newsgroups: co.general
From: paulo@ohmeda.com (Paul E. Ourada)
Subject: Re: QT Wiles
Keywords: Wiles Miniscribe
Organization: Ohmeda Monitoring Systems
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:30:15 GMT

prusk@rosco.Central.Sun.COM (Paul Rusk [Sun Denver System Engineer]) writes:

>Anyone out there know the whereabouts of QT Wiles, formerly of Miniscribe.
>I'm following up on a case study.  Any information would be greatly 
>appreciated.

>TIA,
>Paul

>email: paul.rusk@Central.Sun.COM

Are you *SURE* you're not a disgruntled former shareholder? :) :) :)

Seriously, last *I* heard was that there was a whole *LOTTA* people
looking for him.  His address is somewhere in CA, but I doubt if he's
been there in a long time.

Paul Ourada
paulo@ohmeda.com

Former Smiling Miniscriber, Cause I *Didn't* Buy Any Stock



Newsgroups: co.general
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Beers reviewed (professionally)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:25:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.045357.28245@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kbarr@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith Barr) writes:
>With all this talk (and opinion) on beer, I thought I would post some
>reviews of a few of the beers that have been discussed here.  These were
>written by Michael Jackson, and they appear in his book _Pocket Guide to Beer_.
>
>   *	Typical of its country and style
>  **	Above average
> ***	Worth seeking out
>****	World Classic


Hey! Where does 'putrid' lie on this scale?!?



On that scale, there are no awful beers!




-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: co.general
From: freedman@cs.colostate.edu (keith freedman)
Subject: Re: Support the boycott (was Re: Don't boyc
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 04:27:27 GMT
Reply-To: freedman@cs.colostate.edu
Organization: Colorado State University -=- Computer Science Department

In article 8206@ucsu.Colorado.EDU, taylorje@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (TAYLOR JASON EDMOND) writes:
>   Notice how the strongest supporters of boycotting Colorado live outside the
>state? A boycott is a very easy thing to talk about when it doesn't impact your
>everyday lives, isn't it?

Could you give me a reason someone might want to boycott themselves?
Perhaps logic is getting in the way of me understanding, but why would Coloradoans
want to boycott Colorado?  Clearly, the reason to boycott is to effect others, not
yourself!? (At least that was Bush's philosophy is Desert whatever.)

---
Keith Freedman
Colorado State University
Department of Computer Science
Systems Administration

Newsgroups: co.general
From: vanm@col.hp.com (Van Martin)
Subject: Re: Don't boycott all of Colorado
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:58:45 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

freedman@cs.colostate.edu (keith freedman) writes:
> >> OF COURSE THEY WERENT FIRED.  He couldn't legally fire them UNTIL NOW, could he?
> In article 24047@col.hp.com, kary@col.hp.com (Dan Kary) writes:
> >
> >Colorado Springs, El Paso County and the State of Colorado have no laws
> >or ordinances specifically protecting homosexuals.  No law that affects
> >Perkins Chrysler Plymouth in Colorado Springs was affected by amendment 2.
> >
> If there were no laws specifically protection homosexuals in the State of
> Colorado, why did you want to pass a law that in your words "removes special
> protection."  Apparently, according to you, there wasn't any to begin with.
> 
> >If it was illegal for Will Perkins to fire an employee for being homosexual
> >before amendment 2 passed why is it now legal?  I just don't see anything
> >in the amendment that changes what Perkins (or any employer or landlord, etc.)
> >can do.
> >
> prior to the ammendment, if he were to fire an employee based upon sexual
> orientation, the employee would have had a valid legal claim of descrimination.
> The ammendment prevents the State of Colorado from recognizing such a claim
> in the case of homosexuality.  Perhaps you could re-read the ammendment and
> let me know if this is not the case.

  Keith, you missed my point.  My point is that Will WON'T fire an
  employee for their sexual preference.  Of course he could've all
  along - haven't you ever seen a corporation "beat up" an undesired
  employee?  Usually they just have to watch a few p's and q's and
  they can dump anyone for poor performance.  It happened to a close
  friend who turned down the offer to "come out and play" with the
  president of her firm.  They waited about 3 months, then started
  fabricating "problems" she was creating (she had no way other than
  her own word to counter the charges, so she couldn't press sexual
  harrassment charges - it was only he and she in the copier room at
  the time).  She was fired and had no real recourse.

  Drift over.  Will isn't the kind of man to fire people for philoso-
  phical differences.  But then, just because you're paranoid doesn't
  mean they're _not_ out to get you.

  Have a great Thanksgiving.

  Van  Martin
  vanm@col.hp.com
Newsgroups: co.general
From: freedman@cs.colostate.edu (keith freedman)
Subject: Printing on Money was (Re: Support the boycott ...)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:49:03 GMT
Reply-To: freedman@cs.colostate.edu
Organization: Colorado State University -=- Computer Science Department

In article 5727@colorado.edu, fielden@spot.Colorado.EDU (j. a. fielden) writes:
>
>According to an article that appeared in the Colorado Daily earlier this
>semester it is illegal. It is considered defacing currency. The article
>talked about an individual who paid his tuition in one dollar bills 
>that he had stamped with a slogan. The bank involved stated that they
>are required to remove from circulation every note that is stamped
>written or otherwise marked. Those involved had no intention of arresting
>the guy but they did say it was not legal.
>
It is against the law of the United States to make ANY changes to the face of Federal
Currency.  Whay they said about the banks is quite correct, however money slips
through anyhow.  The Average lifetime of paper bills is 12-18 months.  Usually due to
normal wear and tear.

Well, anyways...
---
Keith Freedman
Colorado State University
Department of Computer Science
Systems Administration

Newsgroups: co.general
From: mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella)
Subject: Re: interesting thought (ammendment 2)
Reply-To: marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:08:53 GMT

Dan Kary (kary@col.hp.com) wrote:
: > : 
: > : Protections for Christians are a slightly different matter, since
: > : the First Amendment to the federal Constitution specifically
: > : protects religous groups. Legally, whether or not they "deserve"
: > : such protection isn't an issue: There is a specific and supreme
: > : law on the subject.
: > 
: > It protects them from government interference; I don't see how anyone could
: > possibly interpret it as protecting them against discrimination by private
: > citizens or companies.
: 
: Fascinating.  I've read amendment 2 several times and each time I read it
: I see that it places limits on GOVERNMENT.  I don't see how anyone could   
: possibly interpret it as something that gives private citizens or companies
: permission to discriminate against anyone for any reason.

Both the first amendment to the US constitution and "amendment 2" place limits
on what the government can do.  But those limits are very different.  The
limits in the first amendment say, essentially, "the government cannot harass
you".  The limits in 2 say, "the government cannot prevent others from
harassing you".  There is a world of difference.

--
Marc Sabatella
marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
--
Amendment 2 Is Legalized Discrimination - Shame On You, Colorado
--
"Neither the State of Colorado ... nor any of its municipalities ... shall ...
 enforce any ... ordinance ... whereby homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual
 orientation ... shall ... be the basis of ... any ... claim of discrimination"
--
All opinions expressed herein are my personal ones
and do not necessarily reflect those of HP or anyone else.
Newsgroups: co.general