HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Emissions Inspections, is new really be
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 05:28:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.192721.12772@ncar.ucar.edu> chris@chinook.atd.ucar.edu writes:
>>>At some point the U.S. is going to need to make
>>>a shift away from cheap gas. 

>>And, hopefully, to some other, equally cheap or cheaper energy source.
>>I don't follow this attitude, that cheap energy and the implied
>>high standard of living, is a bad thing.

>I don't consider having to get in my car and driving 1 mile to the
>store a "high standard".

Then walk: It shouldn't take more than 20 minutes (in fact walking
about a mile is how I usually shop.)

However, I _like_ finding fresh food on the shelves (even in winter).
That requires shipping from other parts of the country (possible
because of cheap energy). I also like (if I'm not feeling well or
the weather is especially bad) being able to go places without
having to walk. I like being able to visit fiends who live more
than 10 miles away. Also, if you look at the lables, I suspect 
most of what you own was made in another state. Would you like to
paying several times as much for all those things? Heating
my apartment in the winter and cooling it in the summer also
involve cheap energy. Would you be willing to pay five times as
high a gas & electric bill? Before you start complaning
about cheap energy, please sit down and think about where
everything you own comes from, how much energy went into
it's production, and how willing you are to do without it.

                                           Frank Crary
                                           CU Boulder
Newsgroups: co.general
From: guyw@advtech.uswest.com (Guy Wells)
Subject: Re: Amnd.2 Boycott is Counterproductive.
Keywords: amendment 2
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Distribution: co
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:25:27 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.174155.14841@ohmeda.com> paulo@ohmeda.com (Paul E. Ourada) writes:
>
>An interesting aside is that The Prez just signed an Executive Order that
>essentially tells the military to stop the gay discrimination.  Will
>be interesting to see how long it takes to sink in...
>
No he didn't. In fact the new DOD Secretary, Les Aspin, was unprepared
as getout when, on Face the Nation yesterday, the interviewers brought
up his 5 page memorandum on how to get this particular act past congress
and the military. In fact the memo initially stated that the an
executive order probably would NOT stand as congress had a large enough
group to pass a law in the other direction!

Sorry, with his passel of executive Orders, Clinton did NOT do this one.

>Paul Ourada
>paulo@ohmeda.com
>


-- 
--
Guy M. Wells <guyw@uswest.com>  Disclaimer: My opinions are mine, no
U S WEST Advanced Technologies  one elses, and certainly not USWEST's!
Newsgroups: co.general
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Emissions Inspections, is new really be
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 02:15:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan28.200852.4892@ncar.ucar.edu> chris@chinook.atd.ucar.edu writes:
>Give me a break.  You don't think Europe and other places
>don't have poor people.  I drive 25,000 miles a year, my vehicle
>gets 20 MPG, if gas went from $1.25 to $2 per gallon, it would cost
>me $950 more per year.  If you figure the average person drives more
>like 12,000 miles per year & gets 25 MPG, their increase would be
>$360 per year.

That's half a month's pay to someone working for minimum wages. There
are alot of people who don't _have_ that kind of money.

>...There is no perfect solution.  We can either continue
>pollution, disolution of our communities, and not offer a new source
>of revenue for the government.

Not offering the government, which has a proven record of wasting whatever
money it's given, a new source of money to throw away sounds like
a _great_ idea to me. As for polution, that can be handled without
restricting driving. And the "disolution of our communities" sounds
like the "family values" rhetoric you probably ridiculed when George
Bush used it...

>...Furthemore, I have zero sympathy for
>anyone still driving a Delta 88, I don't care how poor.

If you can't afford a tune-up, it's quite easy to get under 20mpg
without driving an inherently wastefull car.

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder
Newsgroups: co.general
From: paulo@ohmeda.com (Paul E. Ourada)
Subject: Re: Amnd.2 Boycott is Counterproductive.
Keywords: amendment 2
Organization: Ohmeda Monitoring Systems
Distribution: co
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:41:55 GMT

kooros@refuge.Colorado.EDU (Paul T. Kooros) writes:

>	IMHO, Coloradans seeking to advance the "Boycott Colorado" movement
>are misguided.  They are contributing to a self-destructive anti-productive
>movement which itself practices discrimination, targets for vengeance
>harmless groups, and fails to target culprit groups.  The movement's focus
>is on the collective punishment of "Colorado" (a practice forbidden governments
>by the Geneva and Hague conventions), and offers joining individuals the
>self-indulgent relief of their consciences.  This, rather than address
>rectifying the situation.  Let me explain myself:

>Analysis:
>---------
>	Amendment 2 failed in non-military, non-rural colorado.  This

An interesting aside is that The Prez just signed an Executive Order that
essentially tells the military to stop the gay discrimination.  Will
be interesting to see how long it takes to sink in...

Paul Ourada
paulo@ohmeda.com

Newsgroups: co.general
From: woods@claven.ucar.edu (Greg Woods)
Subject: Re: Emissions Inspections, is new really better than old?
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR Boulder, CO
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:47:00 GMT

In article <1k1ot2INNroq@anthrax.solbourne.com> kucharsk@solbourne.com (William Kucharski) writes:
>The price of gasoline is based on the free flow of oil at market prices.

Your definition of "free flow" is a lot different than mine! When we extract
it at gunpoint from nations that don't want to sell it to us for whatever
reason, this isn't "free flow".

>Saddam Hussein decides HE wants to set the world price of oil, then there's a
>problem.

Did it ever occur to anyone that the "problem" is that we Americans are too
dependent on our automobiles? If we weren't, Saddam would not be able
to wield so much influence over us. The "problem" is that we are bent
on consuming resources that we do not have, so we extract them from others
by force.

>Prices for any product you could name would go through the ceiling
>due to increased transportation costs.

Only things that have to be transported to be sold. We'd have to buy more
stuff that comes from our local area and import less. There might be
a period of economic upheaval certainly, but I think we'd be better off
in the long run. And I'm not even getting in to the environmental damage
caused by this sort of "transportation". I think the end result would be
a minute drop in the quality of lifestyle, a huge saving of money, and
an elimination of dependence on people like Saddam Hussein.

--Greg
Newsgroups: co.general
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Emissions Inspections, is new really be
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 05:59:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.234437.5837@claven.ucar.edu> woods@claven.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) writes:
>I think we are into an area here that is largely a matter of opinion,
>but I believe that practically all of the problems associated with cars
>are due to the fact that every individual has to drive. 

Certainly, if hardly anyone drove, these problems would be reduced. 
However, that doesn't make the extreme and sweeping solution the
best one. The best solution, clearly, is the one that intrudes least
on people's lives (unless you think the purpose of government is
to control people and direct their lives, for their own good... Certainly
our government was chartered and intended to intrude on individual
rights and choices as little as possible.)

>...I really don't
>think these problems will be permanetly solved until we come up with
>some kind of transportation system (public or private) that does not
>require everyone to control their own individual vehicle.

I'm not sure what will permanently solve these problems, but I think
major, intrusive efforts (i.e. taxing gas to the point where no one
can afford to drive) should only be used when we _know_ less repressive
options will not work _and_ that some solution is vitally required.

>I think most
>of your proposed actions above would HELP (although some of them
>may be beyond our economic capabilities right now), but they address what I
>consider to be the SYMPTOMS of the problems, not the root cause.
>It's rather like taking a sore throat lozenge to cure strep. It
>may FEEL better on the surface, but the real problem is not addressed.

However, you don't always _need_ to address the root causes of the 
problem: If the problem doesn't get worse, and the symptoms are 
delt with, who cares about the root cause? (Would you worry about
having a disease that wasn't contagious, didn't threaten your
life or health, and had no noticable symptoms?)

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder
Newsgroups: co.general
From: chesney@obiwan.fsl.noaa.gov (Scott Chesney)
Subject: test
Organization: Forecast Systems Labs, NOAA, Boulder, CO USA
Distribution: co
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:00:42 GMT

Testing....ignore


	--Scott                                 Systems Engineer
	chesney@fsl.noaa.gov                    (303) 497-6342 
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: co.test
From: newspost@edu
Subject: testing newspost v1.0 beta
Originator: Newspost
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 00:50:57 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

please ingore
Newsgroups: co.test
From: jason@bohemia.metronet.org (Jason Taubman)
Subject: test
Summary: test
Keywords: test
Organization: Bohemia BBS System
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:06:56 GMT

this is a test of pico

-- 
this is a test sig
From: mastuemk@nyx.cs.du.edu (Matt Stuemky)
Newsgroups: co.test
Subject: testing 1-2-3 again.....
Date: 28 Jan 93 04:18:36 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.


Howdy, folks!

Hmmm.......I wonder if this will work...

We'll see.
--
Matt Stuemky
mastuemk@nyx.cs.du.edu                     "Whakangarongaro he tangata
					    Toitu he whenua"
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: ftarnol@nmastaff.mnet.uswest.com (Fred Arnold (303) 896-8084)
Subject: MLK Celebration '94 - Does the KKK participate?
Organization: U S WEST Communications
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 03:58:18 GMT

I read in the Denver paper this morning that Denver Mayor Webb had devised
a new approach to the MLK festivities designed to keep the Klan off the
Capitol steps next Jan.  Just show up early enough to be the first in line to
file for a permit.  Beat the Klan to the punch.  Based on Shawn Slater's
comment in the Post, it doesn't look like it worked.

Shawn says that if they're denied a permit for the Capitol steps, the Klan
will file for a permit to assemble at the City/County building, which, I
believe, is RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET from the MLK assembly point downtown.
Further, he told the Post that if that fails, the Klan will simply join the
parade, since THEY DON'T NEED police protection.

It's hard to imagine that the Klan could march in the MLK parade without a
violent confrontation.  This particular bunch of scuzballs has had success
the last couple of years in disrupting the festivities, although this year's
celebration was relatively calm, compared to last year.

A related article quoted a police source whose name I've forgotten saying
that the Klan's activities are costing the city too much money.  The
implication was that $$ was sufficient cause to deny the Klan a permit.
Since Denver (and the state, for that matter) don't have a real impressive
record when it comes to upholding the right of the people to peaceably
assemble, as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights (witness the Columbus day
parade cancellation and last year's heavy handed attempt by Governor Romer
to stop the Klan), SURELY the city could not be so stupid as to try some
money-motivated scheme to deny the Klan a permit?

I'm not a resident of Denver, so it's pretty hard for me to get too worked
up over the cost of protecting the Klan, and I sure don't want to see anyone,
even the Klan, lose their right to free speech and assembly.  Having said 
that, it sure would be great if someone would propose a tactic that would
neutralize the Klan and allow us to celebrate the birth and life of a
most remarkable American.

How 'bout it, anyone got any ideas?

-- 
+******************************************************************************+
| Fred Arnold   NRA Life                                                       |
|    Voice (303) 896-8084                                                      |
|      FAX (303) 896-7644                                                      |
+******************************************************************************+

Newsgroups: co.politics
From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: What is a "hate crime"?
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 14:07:29 GMT

sm> Suzanne Morine

sm> As for society spurning group hates, I meant how all of us must recognise
    our small part in the marginalizing of groups, a la the south after the
    civil war, a la germany in the '30's.

  Half my ancestors weren't even in the US until after 1900, and I have never
  been a citizen of Germany. Why am *I* in some "small part" responsible for
  actions that occurred before I was born?

sm> How, as a society, we've decided to never forget that societies must be
    responsible for what they as a group do to sub-groups.

  Societies aren't responsible, individuals are.

sm> I see such things as anti-discrimination laws, and hate crime laws, as
    tools to deter people's blatantly marginalizing people (i.e. saying "you're
    fired because you're a queer," or repeatedly egging cars outside of a cer-
    tain meeting place).

  Should the infamous Shawn Slater be charged with hate crimes? He stood at the
  Capitol building and spewed anti-black, anti-gay, anti-Semitic and a whole
  bunch more anti-X slogans and phrases. A more clear case of a "hate crime"
  would be difficult to find. Why hasn't he been charged with anything?

  Also, what about the young black men who kicked and beat Colleen Kelly, al-
  most to death? In fact, one of the men has been charged with attempted mur-
  der. Apparently they also shouted racial epithets at Kelly. Should they al-
  so be charged with hate crimes?
  
sm> If better tools for that deterrent are found, we would use them.

  Easy. Use better ideas to battle idiots like Slater. Don't *ever* make the
  mistake of letting the State decide which ideas are too dangerous to be al-
  lowed. Doing so just might result in *your* ideas being illegal.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
From: jrbd@craycos.com (James Davies)
Newsgroups: co.politics
Subject: Re: MLK Celebration '94 - Does the KKK participate?
Date: 22 Jan 93 03:56:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1993Jan21.035818.20500@nma.mnet.uswest.com> ftarnol@nmastaff.mnet.uswest.com (Fred Arnold (303) 896-8084) writes:
>
>I'm not a resident of Denver, so it's pretty hard for me to get too worked
>up over the cost of protecting the Klan, and I sure don't want to see anyone,
>even the Klan, lose their right to free speech and assembly.  Having said 
>that, it sure would be great if someone would propose a tactic that would
>neutralize the Klan and allow us to celebrate the birth and life of a
>most remarkable American.
>
>How 'bout it, anyone got any ideas?

Ignore them.  Get the media to ignore them too.  Let them buy their
publicity, instead of providing it for free.  Write letters to all
of the newspapers, TV and radio stations in the area asking them not
to carry any "news" about the planned KKK activities.  If they show
up next year, don't respond to them, just go about your business.

(Maybe you can teach fish to ride bicycles while you're at it :-)
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: woods@claven.ucar.edu (Greg Woods)
Subject: Re: What is a "hate crime"?
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR Boulder, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:26:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.232004.13676@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smorine@nyx.cs.du.edu (Suzanne Morine) writes:
>Using my imaginary(?) definition of a "hate crime" distinction, the
>the severity of the crime would be increased.  A court would have to show
>that he intended to play a hand in marginalizing her group 

I must strongly disagree. Advocating "marginalizing a group" is not illegal
and to prohibit it, or make crime sentencing affected by what was advocated,
is a violation of free speech rights and a VERY dangerous precedent. It
*is* only a small step from going after Nazis to going after Communists
to going after Liberals. (or if you prefer, from going after Nazis to
going after right wing zealots to going after capitalists).

If however an intent to threaten can be shown, that is felony menacing,
a more serious crime that could be prosecuted. However, the onus of
proving that a threat was intended should be on the prosecution. "Hate
crime" laws tend to shift this onus to the defendant and that is the
reason why I object to them. The existing laws cover this case just fine.
Hate crime laws are nothing more than an attempt to suppress currently
unpopular views.

--Greg
From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Newsgroups: co.politics
Subject: Who can be "hated"?
Date: 28 Jan 93 04:44:53 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.

Just what does it take to make a "hate crime"?  Can a white person be
"hated"?  Is rape a "hate crime"?
From: smorine@nyx.cs.du.edu (Suzanne Morine)
Newsgroups: co.politics
Subject: Re: What is a "hate crime"?
Date: 21 Jan 93 23:38:38 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.

fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>In article <1993Jan20.053259.11480@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smorine@nyx.cs.du.edu (Suzanne Morine) writes:
>>...I can imagine
>>a murder in self defense, where the person could have shot the attacker
>>in the shoulder or abdomen but chose to kill instead.  I imagine that
>>the court would consider the situation, such as panic and the person's
>>background.

>Actually, in the "fighting words" case, the accused's testimony doesn't
>matter: If the words provoked a violent reaction, they are
>"fighting words." It doesn't matter if the accused didn't _intend_
>to provoke anyone: All these laws require is one person to say,
>"I found that so offensive, I couldn't stop myself from hitting him."
>A better, although in my opinion still imperfect, standard
>(adopted by the California court ruling I mentioned above) which
>works both for your "fighting words" and self-defence killing 
>example, is the "reasonable man" doctorine: Would a "reasonable
>man" (or, in practice, the hopefully reasonable jury...) consider
>statement "fighting words" or the self-defence justified under
>the circumstances. While that's still subject to the jury's
>biases, it is still better than some of the current "fighting
>words" laws, where "fighting words" is defined solely by the
>accuser's personal opinion.

Definately: letting the fighter determine completely what constitutes
"fighting words" is too open to abuse by fighters.

The "reasonable man" doctrine sounds reasonable to me, especially
if the opinions/perspectives of the people involved were considered.

--
--Suzanne Morine          smorine@nyx.cs.du.edu
--"It is wonderful how much time good people spend fighting the devil.  If
--they would only expend the same amount of energy loving their fellow men,
--the devil would die in his own tracks of ennui."     Helen Keller
Newsgroups: co.politics.amend2.info
From: WAND_M@gold.colorado.edu
Subject: Boycott drive still stands, organizers say
Followup-To: amend2-discuss@cs.colorado.edu
Originator: doherty@ucsu.Colorado.EDU
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 03:51:37 GMT

Gazette Telegraph, Colorado Springs
January 16, 1993

By Dave Curtin

DENVER--The boycott movement against Colorado will continue despite a judge's 
ruling that keeps Amendment 2 from becoming law for now.

"Amendment 2 is still on the books in Colorado and is still a threat," said 
Terry Schleter, spokeswoman for Denver-based Boycott Colorado, which is asking 
people across the nation to do business elsewhere.

The goup hopes economic pressure will undermine support for the amendment, whic 
prohibits gay-protection laws in Colorado.  It was put hold Friday pending the 
outcome of a constitutional challenge to the law.

"We're very pleased," Schleter said, "but an injunction (stopping the law) is 
just a Band-Aid."

Several cities, outraged over voter approval of the amendment, have cut 
economic ties with Colorado and some major conventions have been canceled, 
costing millions of dollars in lost business.  Several Hollywood celebrities 
have endorsed the boycott, saying they will not perform in Colorado.

In Colorado Springs, a gay rights group also expressed support for keeping the 
pressure on.

The boycott is "an important way to galvanie atataention and help keep the 
issue alive," said Bruce Loeffler, spokesman for Ground Zero.

"We see it as a valuablae tool of education.  It's also an appropriate way for 
people outside of Colorado to stand up and be counted and show how they feel."

John Miller, a professor at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs and 
a plaintiff in the lawsuit seeking to overturn Amendment 2, thinks continuing 
the boycott is appropriate.

"I would think that to exert pressure on the thinking of Coloradans, that the 
boycott has a purpose."

That doesn't surprise Joseph Nee of Colorado Springs, who organized a group 
called BACK OFF--Boycotters of Colorado Keep Out of Our Affairs.

"What they do is irrelevant to us.  We're still doing what we set out to do and 
that's contact cities and explain our case to them," Nee said.

     Staff writers Jeff Thomas and Rich Laden also contributed to this report.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrections, new info, and requests for info: amend2-info@cs.colorado.edu
Administrative comments                     : amend2-mod@cs.colorado.edu
General Discussion                          : amend2-discuss@cs.colorado.edu
Boulder/Denver area local meetings/events   : amend2-local@cs.colorado.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe to a list, send mail to Majordomo@cs.colorado.edu, with
        subscribe <list-name>
in the BODY of the message.  For multiple lists, use multiple lines.

Newsgroups: co.politics.amend2.info