HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kelvin@netwise.com (Kelvin Fedrick)
Subject: Re: Emissions Inspections, is new really better than old?
Organization: Netwise Inc.  Boulder, CO
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:16:17 GMT

In article <32936@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM> wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson) writes:
>Perot suggested a $0.50 tax on a gallon while almost everyone
>else in industrial countries pays $4-$5 for a gallon, can anyone
>think of a reason why a high tax, which would go toward road
>maintenance and pollution measures, would not be a good idea?
>If people drove less, our air would be cleaner, the roads would
>be safer, especially for bicyclists and motorcyclists, there would
>be less dust and noise, we'd all be heathier.

I have no objection in principle to a higher gas tax (don't know about $.5)
so long as the revenue gained was indeed used for roads, bridges, alternative
transit projects, etc. and not diverted for other purposes. There are some
issues which must be acknowledged and addressed beforehand though.

That kind of a tax is regressive. It places a heavier burdon on poorer people
than on the rich. Poor people should drive you say? Not every community has
the kind of public transit systems available in Boulder and Denver and some
people need cars in their work, to get to and from work, and so forth. It is
not fair nor acceptable (IMHO) to just say to these people: dont drive, move
closer to you place of work, get another job, force your elected officials
to invest in a public transit system, and etc..

Second, increasing fuel cost would effect the cost of doing business for
many companies which make extensive use of trucks and cars. Making it
more expensive for businesses to operate is probably not the best thing
for the economy right now.

Finally, there is the question of whether additional revenue would be raised
by doing this. Typically as fuel prices rise, people drive less so it is
possible that you wont get any more money than comes in for gas taxes now.

What is missing in the idea a method of targeting those times when people
are making recreational use of vehicles as opposed to business or otherwise
necessary use. If you can suggest a practical method of doing this without
introducing yet another bureaucratic mess, then I would say you have something.

-kelvin
Newsgroups: co.general,rec.skiing,rec.travel
From: smith@dallas.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Amendment 2 Yet Again (was Re: Colorado Ski Report)
Organization: nasa-jsc
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 13:50:21 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.044543.10771@netcom.com>, altinbay@netcom.com (John Altinbay) writes:

|> > "Hooray for Colorado".  Ski elsewhere then... and quit whining.
|> 
|> By stating this, you are admitting that you support discrimination.
|> By the way, who's whining?
|> 
|> -- 
|> John Altinbay   -   altinbay@netcom.com
|> ===============================================================
|> There's a spirit that guides me, a light that shines for me
|> My life is worth the living, I don't need to see the end.


Obviously the spirit that guides you is not the Holy Spirit.  No 
self-respecting Christian would openly support a life style such
as homosexuality. 
-- 

==============================================================================
DPS
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: co.general,rec.skiing,rec.travel
From: morreale@niwot.scd.ucar.edu (Peter W. Morreale, SCD Consulting)
Subject: Re: Colorado amendment 2 information / boycott
Organization: Scientific Computing Divison/NCAR Boulder, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 02:06:43 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.032748.21387@mercury.cair.du.edu> elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu (Eric LeSatz) writes:
>
>how come they are above average in income? This brings up the point
>that there should be laws that reduce the number of homosexuals in
>high level positions so that heterosexual income will be more equal to
>homosexual income. But no, you and the media don't want to hear that

   D*mm right, Eric!   I'm just sick and tired of being stepped over in high
   paying jobs by homosexuals.  Seems like everytime I see a high paying
   job offered, theere's some d*mm homo getting the job ahead of me.  Mebbe 
   we oughta just shoot them commie homo-b*stards.   That'll show'em....

>
> You just want to hear the one in a million horror story about
>the poor person who was fired because he was gay. But then you never
>hear about the nice settlement that the company gives the homosexual
>in question when he/she files a lawsuit.

  ("Pssss, Eric", whispered Pete, "They can file lawsuits, but they
  can't win them by claiming gay discrimination 'cause according to the 
  Colorado Constitution, they can't be victims of gay discrimination.")

>
>And I will certainly enjoy skiing in Colorado this winter. You might
>be surprised about the silent majority whom is coming to Colorado just
>because Amendment 2 was passed.
>
>Eric

  Great!!!!  Come on out!!!,  Spend *lots* of money!!!
  then go home.

-PWM


--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter W. Morreale                  email:  morreale@ncar.ucar.edu
Nat'l Center for Atmos Research    voice:  (303) 497-1293
Scientific Computing Division     
Newsgroups: co.general
From: ren@rap.ucar.edu (Ren Tescher)
Subject: Re: Emissions Inspections, is new really better than old?
Organization: NCAR, Research Applications Program
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 14:58:29 GMT

In article <32936@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM> wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson) writes:
>Be sure you bring the vehicle to normal operating temperature before
>you have it tested, since the test assumes this and vehicles
>have higher emissions when cold.
	I'm not a chemist, but I believe the 'catalytic' converter must
reach a certain temperature (1000 degrees?) before catalyzing can occur.
This would explain why a cold engine would fail emissions testing and
lend support to the 'argument' that short trips pollute more.
ren
dona nobis pacem
Newsgroups: co.general
From: rosinski@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Jim Rosinski)
Subject: Re: Colorado Ski Report, etc., etc., etc.
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 23:31:22 GMT

I wrote:

>>I see no reason why you should feel threatened by homosexuals.  On the other
>>hand, always fear laws ostensibly designed to protect "rights", which in fact
>>act to deny freedom of association.  Do you *really* want the government
>>telling businesses who they must hire or otherwise associate with?

Brian Kauffman responds:

>Do you mean, like, Jews, Japanese, Blacks & females?

As examples, yes.  Also whites, males, people with long hair, or people 
posessing any other physical characteristics you care to name.

>In a general setting, why should religion/race/skin-color/sex be an 
>unacceptable criteria for hiring/firing while sexual orientation is 
>an acceptable criteria?

The question is not which criteria are "acceptable" in the sense that we
approve of them, but rather which criteria should be *legal*.  This country
tolerates *speech* which a vast majority of its citizens find repugnant, and
there are good reasons for this.  Why should hiring/firing practices be any
different?


Jim Rosinski
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Emissions Inspections, is new really better than old?
Date: 5 Jan 93 19:16:39 GMT
Organization: Alpha Science Computer Network, Denver, Co.

Be sure you bring the vehicle to normal operating temperature before
you have it tested, since the test assumes this and vehicles
have higher emissions when cold.

I like the idea of a larger gas tax. That would keep a lot of
people from driving frivously (come on, people, our climate is just
too good, especially in the summer and fall for us to go everywhere
all the time by car.). A car not driven (no matter how badly it
pollutes) pollutes less than a car which has low emissions.

Perot suggested a $0.50 tax on a gallon while almost everyone
else in industrial countries pays $4-$5 for a gallon, can anyone
think of a reason why a high tax, which would go toward road
maintenance and pollution measures, would not be a good idea?
If people drove less, our air would be cleaner, the roads would
be safer, especially for bicyclists and motorcyclists, there would
be less dust and noise, we'd all be heathier.

-- 
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom) Bulletin 629-49 Item 6700 Extract 75,131
Newsgroups: co.general
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: Amendment 2 Yet Again (was Re: Colorado Ski Report)
Originator: tchrist@pixel.convex.com
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:51:02 GMT
Reply-To: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Colorado Springs, CO
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

From the keyboard of davet@solbourne.com (Dave Taylor):
:Thanks for the info!  I've always considered myself a self-respecting
:Christian but now I know that I was deluding myself!  I could have sworn
:that Christ taught us not to judge other people (lest you be judged yourself)
:but now I know that I was incorrect.  Are there any other groups I should
:know about that I shouldn't support?  Like blacks, women, or maybe government
:employees?  Please, DPS, show me the way!  I want to be a self-respecting 
:Christian but I just can't figure out WHO to hate!!!

Oh, probably Jews, Moslems, and anybody else who's obviously 
"wrong" according to your Church.  After all, it's been happening
throughout history -- why stop now?  :-(

--to
-- 
    Tom Christiansen      tchrist@convex.com      convex!tchrist

Miksch's Law:
        If a string has one end, then it has another end.
Newsgroups: co.general
From: thomasd@tps.COM (Thomas W. Day)
Subject: Re: Emissions Inspections, is new really better than old?
Organization: TPS
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:17:16 GMT

In article <1ici6gINNdj4@hp-col.col.hp.com> dag@col.hp.com (David Geiser) writes:
>Depending on your driving habits with that vehicle, just changing the oil
>(and filter) could be enough.  After that, check the air filter and
>then the plugs.

Yes, yes, and yes.  I did that series, but it still failed at another 
service facility, my dealer this time.

>If the mechanic didn't recommend this stuff, but did recommend $270 worth
>of 'repairs', I'd be very suspicous.

The repairs ended up costing $255 with an oil/filter change (which I 
elected to do without waiting for a recommendation).  They (Elway Toyota) 
replaced the oxygen sensor ($110) and adjusted the injection system idle 
mixture.  It passed after that with some margin, but it still isn't 
significantly better than my 1973 Toyota Hilux pickup.  In fact the pickup 
would have passed the same test.  

>Let us know how it turns out.  Maybe you can recommend a shop to avoid.

I'm still neutral on Elway Toyota.  They aren't bad, but they aren't 
convincing me that my '86 was a smart buy.  I am less convinced that mob of 
metal, plastic, and wiring under my hood does anything that the simple 
carb and mechanical electrical system in my '73 can't do.  In other words, 
for all the complexity I see no advantage in emissions between the two 
vehicles.  I thought I was doing something to improve the environment in 
buying a newer car.  Now, I think I was just buying a newer car, which 
wasn't the purpose for this purchase.  I was perfectly happy with my old 
pickup.
From: dag@col.hp.com (David Geiser)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Emissions Inspections, is new really better than old?
Date: 5 Jan 1993 17:57:36 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hplsdor.col.hp.com

thomasd@tps.COM (Thomas W. Day) writes:
> This is probably more a question for mechanics than politicians, but here 
> goes.  My newest ever vehicle, a 1986 Toyota Van, recently failed an 
> emissions test: CO was 4X allowed and HCs were 10X allowed.  This vehicle is 
> as loaded with antipollution stuff as it gets: fuel injection, sensors 
> everywhere, catalitic converter, etc.  It will cost me $270 to get this 
> unit back on the road.

Depending on your driving habits with that vehicle, just changing the oil
(and filter) could be enough.  After that, check the air filter and
then the plugs.

If the mechanic didn't recommend this stuff, but did recommend $270 worth
of 'repairs', I'd be very suspicous.

Let us know how it turns out.  Maybe you can recommend a shop to avoid.


dag
-- 
To know recursion, you must first know recursion.
--

Newsgroups: co.general
From: rosinski@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Jim Rosinski)
Subject: Re: Colorado amendment 2 information / boycott
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:48:26 GMT

This is being posted to co.general only.

elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu (Eric LeSatz) wrote:

>>how come they are above average in income? This brings up the point
>>that there should be laws that reduce the number of homosexuals in
>>high level positions so that heterosexual income will be more equal to
>>homosexual income. But no, you and the media don't want to hear that

morreale@niwot.scd.ucar.edu (Peter W. Morreale) responds:

>   D*mm right, Eric!   I'm just sick and tired of being stepped over in high
>   paying jobs by homosexuals.  Seems like everytime I see a high paying
>   job offered, theere's some d*mm homo getting the job ahead of me.  Mebbe 
>   we oughta just shoot them commie homo-b*stards.   That'll show'em....

You took what Mr. LeSatz said out of context, and your answer indicates that
you missed his point. He was saying (I think) that if the purpose of laws 
Amendment 2 bans is to provide economic "equality" between heterosexuals and
homosexuals, then turnabout is fair play and the preposterous scenario he
described (laws reducing the number of gays in high positions) is justified,
in light the "fact" that average income for gays is higher than for straights.


Jim Rosinski
Newsgroups: co.general,rec.skiing,rec.travel,nyx.misc,du.general,bit.list
From: davids@gardener.lanl.gov (David G. Simmons)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2 Yet Again (was Re: Colorado Ski Report)
Originator: davids@feynman.lanl.gov
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:08:22 GMT


In article <1993Jan6.135021.15282@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, smith@dallas.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
|> In article <1993Jan6.044543.10771@netcom.com>, altinbay@netcom.com (John Altinbay) writes:
|> 
|> |> > "Hooray for Colorado".  Ski elsewhere then... and quit whining.
|> |> 
|> |> By stating this, you are admitting that you support discrimination.
|> |> By the way, who's whining?
|> |> 
|> |> -- 
|> |> John Altinbay   -   altinbay@netcom.com
|> |> ===============================================================
|> |> There's a spirit that guides me, a light that shines for me
|> |> My life is worth the living, I don't need to see the end.
|> 
|> 
|> Obviously the spirit that guides you is not the Holy Spirit.  No 
|> self-respecting Christian would openly support a life style such
|> as homosexuality. 
|> -- 
|> 
|> ==============================================================================
|> DPS
|> ==============================================================================

Reminds me of something attributed to Mark Twain:

	"The more Christians I meet, the more I like my dog."

More and more, whenever I see "Christian" I also see Bigot, close-minded,
moralistic, and on and on.

Enough of this Crap.  Let's get back to skiing. 

This IS, after all, rec.SKIING, not rec.moralizing, rec.bigotry, rec.christian,
rec.boycott, rec.homosexual.ski.vacation or any other permutation.
It is REC.SKIING!

-David
Newsgroups: co.general,rec.skiing,rec.travel
From: maman@mars.Colorado.EDU (Nathan M. Maman)
Subject: Work Laws
Reply-To: maman@boulder.Colorado.EDU
Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:52:44 GMT

Hi,

I'm not very familiar with the Law and regulations.  Can A fire B
without a reason related to the work of B?  For example, if I come to
work without a tie, can my boss fire me for that?

					Nat
--
M. Nathan M. MAMAN,  Campus Box 429,  Boulder COLORADO 80309, USA
EM:maman@boulder.Colorado.EDU TEL:(303)492-4481 FAX:(303)492-4990
From: aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Colorado amendment 2 information / boycott
Date: 12 Jan 93 14:21:52 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.

In <1993Jan12.045400.6256@ncar.ucar.edu> rosinski@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Jim Rosinski) writes:

>>Eric writes:
>> 
>>: Hate to differ with you, but I'm paying higher auto insurance rates
>>: because I am a single male, under 25 years old. I'm clearly being
>>: discriminated against because of my marital status, sex and age, but
>>: you don't hear me crying about it.

>But maybe he *should* have a case.  To those of you squawking about how
>terrible "discrimination" is: Do you have an answer to the question Eric 
>implied: Why is it "bad" to discriminate against someone because they are 
>black, gay, or female, but "ok" to discriminate against someone because they 
>are male, under 25, or single?  Hint: "Because the law says what it does",
>... is not sufficient.

My 2 cents... If insurance were voluntary, then because the basis is not
arbitrarily concocted, but based on measured probabilities, as insurance is,
it isn't a prejudiced rule (there is no "pre" judging of the whole group,
there is "judging" of the whole group, based on equal observation of the
whole population).

BUT -- when insurance is mandatory, e.g., auto insurance, I'll have to say
that I agree it should not charge selectively.  The whole idea of insurance
is to spread the risk, so if everyone is required to have it, the risk should
be spread evenly among that whole group.  (Where it's voluntary, the free
market system can kick in and companies can charge whatever they want.)

I tend to think that many insurance companies "take advantage" of this
freedom (for voluntary insurance) by making the rates so high for the high
risk groups that it ceases to be "fair",alas.  (I.e., they quit spreading
the risk from the high risk to low risk groups together; seems to me like
it defeats the purpose, but it does of course make them money.)

So in the sense of "discrimination = prejudicial behavior", this isn't
discrimination.  (And it isn't really right to complain about it in the sense of
"discrimination = fairly judged behavior", since that includes things like
giving felons the right to carry guns, etc.)
-- 

Andrew Burt 		   					  aburt@du.edu

"But if he was dying he wouldn't bother to carve "Aaaaargh", he'd just say it."
From: pack@uars2.acd.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman)
Subject: Re: Poor poor CU coaching staff
Summary: Help local physicians
Organization: Ntl Center for Atmospheric Research, Atmospheric Chemistry
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:06:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.170119.17389@ncar.ucar.edu> ethan@earl.scd.ucar.edu (Ethan
Alpert) writes:
>
>Maybe you didn't read that McCartney says the dome will be financed by PRIVATE
>funds. No university funds will be diverted to the project. I plan on giving
>money to the project just to spite people like you. You should have nothing
>to say about a bunch of alums getting together and giving money to the football
>program. That is unless you are jealous. Sure there are priority problems but
>there is NOTHING you can do about the priorities of the alumni. And your
>constant whining is making me less supportive of academics and more supportive
>of athletics.

Two more reasons to support football at CU:

1. Help out the financially strapped NFL which cannot even support its own
   farm system like major league baseball.
2. Help out the financially strapped physicians in the area who need to fill
   their offices with large injured undergrads.

Of course you can give your money to whatever useless activity you want
such as football or academics.  Personally, I am looking forward to the
time when our sun becomes a red giant and engulfs this planet.  That should
finally put an end to this argument.

--
Dan Packman     NCAR                             INTERNET: pack@ncar.UCAR.EDU
(303) 497-1427  P.O. Box 3000                       CSNET: pack@ncar.CSNET
                Boulder, CO  80307-3000      DECNET  SPAN: 9583::PACK
Newsgroups: co.general,rec.skiing,rec.travel,nyx.misc,du.general,bit.listserv.travel-l
From: jbunch@nyx.cs.du.edu (John Bunch)
Subject: Re: Colorado Ski Report
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 14:17:32 GMT

astrashe@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alex Strasheim) writes:

>In article <1993Jan4.230717.3233@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> smith@lurch.jsc.nasa.gov writes:

>>I'm happy to say that I AM skiing in Colorado in March, BECAUSE the 
>>amendment was passed.  I won't have to worry about gay men staring at
>>me while I am using the restroom (hopefully all gay men will boycott
>>Colorado).

>Listen--  I'm going to suppress my natural response, which would be to say
>something really rude to you.  Instead, I'll just ask:  do you REALLY
>worry about gay men staring at you while you're in the bathroom?

Kinda silly if you ask me, worrying if a gay man is staring at you while
in a restroom.   I mean really now, are you that self conscience?  Geesh!
The only thing I worry about when in a restroom, is if I am gonna slip on
the floor!  ;-)


John Bunch.  (Pround that Albany passed there Gay Right legislation!!)


--
John B Bunch              *  I don't want the world, I just want your
280 Quail St. 1st Floor   *     half....     -TMBG
Albany, NY 12208          *  jbunch@nyx.cs.du.edu If mail here bounces
(518) 436-3810            *  Try John.Bunch@bbs.oit.unc.edu
From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Emissions Inspections, is new really better than old?
Date: 5 Jan 93 05:35:56 GMT
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.

thomasd@tps.COM (Thomas W. Day) writes:

>This is probably more a question for mechanics than politicians, but here 
>goes.  My newest ever vehicle, a 1986 Toyota Van, recently failed an 
>emissions test: CO was 4X allowed and HCs were 10X allowed.  This vehicle is 
>as loaded with antipollution stuff as it gets: fuel injection, sensors 
>everywhere, catalitic converter, etc.  It will cost me $270 to get this 
>unit back on the road.

Did you by any chance go to the Amocco(sp?) at 32nd and Youngfield?  SURE
it will cost you $270 to get it back on the road!
Newsgroups: co.general
From: freedman@cs.colostate.edu (keith freedman)
Subject: Re: Work Laws
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1993 20:01:24 GMT
Reply-To: freedman@cs.colostate.edu
Organization: Colorado State University -=- Computer Science Department

In article 14588@colorado.edu, maman@mars.Colorado.EDU (Nathan M. Maman) writes:
>Hi,
>
>I'm not very familiar with the Law and regulations.  Can A fire B
>without a reason related to the work of B?  For example, if I come to
>work without a tie, can my boss fire me for that?
>
In Colorado, an employer has the right to terminate an employee if they
feel that employee is not what the job requires.  ie. if the job (in the
employers mind) requires a tie, the employee can be fired.  The employee
has the right to sue the employer for unjustified termination.
---
Keith Freedman
Colorado State University
Department of Computer Science
Systems Administration

Newsgroups: co.general,rec.skiing,rec.travel