HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sunny@al.cs.wm.edu (John S. Egbo)
Newsgroups: misc.education,alt.discrimination,soc.culture.african.american,soc.women
Subject: Re: "Reflections of an Affirmative Action Baby"
Date: 16 Dec 92 18:21:04 GMT
Organization: College of William & Mary, founded 1693

I received several electronic mails on this topic and I want to summarize
and clarify the points I have made.

Even though I have vehemently argued in support of AA, I have not been
a directly; maybe indirectly in as much as it causes some good schools to
to look at all qualified students and not their traditionals base.  I
will also be the first to tell you that I do not support admitting anyone
not QUALIFY to attend a particular institution on the basis of AA. But this
is NOT the issue here.  The issue is hearing all the white people who
will not, and could not if it hit them in the head, see that being white
in America afford them previleges to the detriment of other groups.
Without AA and the civil right laws of sixties, these previleges
would go unchallenged and otherwise qualified minorities would not be 
considered by some of the schools you guys are using as cases.

One guy really made me laugh by tell me about "cause and effect."  If 
cause and effect was or is the rule, we would not be discussing this
issue at all.  So who is not understanding here?

If I was to agree with some the arguments made by some of the opponents
of AA, I would have to suspect the motives of schools that admit 
unqualified students and watch them fail.  If these schools really
care and did admit unqualified student, then they should have provided
assistance to help the students catch up.

My biggest bone is that some of these schools admit qualified 
students but let them fail because of the environment that have existed
since slavery, among some of which is outright discrimination by some
teachers and other stuff that makes the academic experience for these
students a bad one.  These schools then turn around and show us
statistics and other garbage that fail to consider the root causes of
the drop out of students.  In my life-time I have seen students who
even though they may lack some skills pick them up because they are good
students.  What's apalling is seeing good students drop out and start
to believe themselves inadequate.  You will have to question the type
of education they received or did not receive.

-Sunny

I may not be able to write for sometime and will sure miss this tread.
Newsgroups: misc.education,alt.discrimination,soc.culture.african.american,soc.women
From: Terry.Parks@launchpad.unc.edu (Terry Parks)
Subject: Re: "Reflections of an Affirmative Action Baby"
Organization: UNC Office of Information Technology
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 01:28:44 GMT

>BTW, I am STILL waiting for you to produce a list of white
>and asian students who were "qualified" and have not been
>able to attend college due to AA. 

I refer you to the famous case where a person was denied access to
Med school in California solely because he was Caucasian. He had
to go to court to obtain access.

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: misc.education,alt.discrimination,soc.culture.african.american,soc.women
From: solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky)
Subject: Re: "Reflections of an Affirmative Action Baby"
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 02:25:49 GMT

In article <ISBELL.92Dec7100403@panther.ai.mit.edu>, isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:

|> AA does not stigmatize qualified people.  Others use the program as an
|> excuse to stigmatize everyone.  Which, interestingly enough, is
|> discriminatory.

To stimatize is to mark with something deserving of opprobrium
according to webster. For a non-racist, all workers, black and
white are equally qualified before AA. After AA all blacks have
been marked as needing a lower set of qualifications to get in
to a school or to get a job. There us absolutely no doubt that
AA stigmatizes. I would strongly recommend that anybody who thinks
otherwise wake up.

Jason W. Solinsky
Newsgroups: boulder.general
From: tarrall@Colorado.EDU (Captain Neon)
Subject: Re: Drivers here are better than average!
Keywords: under the influence, neighborhood beat cops
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: 14 Dec 92 05:15:36 GMT

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

>From your remarks, can I assume you support mandatory drug tests for
>all students in public schools and colleges, or even 
>schools that receive some government grant money? After all, you don't
>have to attend such a school and if you are going to benefit from
>government-funded education (by your logic) isn't it reasonable for
>the government to require that you prove you don't use drugs?

No, I definitely don't support such drug testing.  First, I'd want them
to show that a positive result on a drug test means that you have
caused someone harm (besides yourself) or endangered someone else's
health or well-being.  A urine test shows only that you consumed the
drug within a certain time period.
  I believe you have the right to take whatever recreational pharmaceuticals
you choose, so long as you do it in such a way that your actions while under 
their influence have no chance of endangering me or anyone else who hasn't 
explicitly agreed to such involvement.  I believe that a roadside alcohol 
test with a result higher than 0.05% constitutes sufficient proof that you 
acted in a manner which endangered other people by your actions.
				-Robert.-
From: jensen@solbourne.com (Pete Jensen)
Newsgroups: boulder.general
Subject: 4-sale
Date: 15 Dec 1992 07:27:21 -0700
Organization: Solbourne Computer, Inc., Longmont, CO  USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: ollie.solbourne.com

The following item are for sale 
and the price of each is negotiable

4 Drawer dresser = $50
6 month old Futon, 8" foam core with frame = $140
4 185/70R13 studded snow tires, used one season = $120

Call Chris at 440-8425
or reply to this account!

pete
	- The best thing to hold onto in this
		 world is each other.
Newsgroups: boulder.general
From: cuffell@spot.Colorado.EDU (CUFFELL TIMOTHY MICH)
Subject: Re: Drivers here are better than average!
Keywords: under the influence, neighborhood beat cops
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:01:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.170034.1726@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <tarrall.724310136@qso> tarrall@Colorado.EDU (Captain Neon) writes:
>>>From your remarks, can I assume you support mandatory drug tests for
>>>all students in public schools and colleges, or even 
>>>schools that receive some government grant money? After all, you don't
>>>have to attend such a school and if you are going to benefit from
>>>government-funded education (by your logic) isn't it reasonable for
>>>the government to require that you prove you don't use drugs?
>
>>No, I definitely don't support such drug testing.  First, I'd want them
>>to show that a positive result on a drug test means that you have
>>caused someone harm (besides yourself) or endangered someone else's
>>health or well-being.  A urine test shows only that you consumed the
>>drug within a certain time period.
>
>From the discussion of drunk driving, this doesn't seem necessary: All
>that is required is that the majority of the voters feel the act
>is harmfull. That's why driving with a BAC of 0.04 is legal while one
>of 0.05 is not: The majority made an arbitrary decision about the harm done.
>If the majority of the people felt drug use was harmfull (for all the
>doubtfull reasons argued by the War on Drugs people), would this 
>satisfy your objection? If not, how is this different from the
>majoritarian decision about drunk driving and BAC levels? (Other, of course,
>than logic along the lines of "repression by the majority is ok, as
>long as I'm part of the majority...")
>
>                                                    Frank Crary
>                                                    CU Boulder
>

Point 1:

	I never voted for any BAC, and neither did you.  You may have voted for
	legislator who shaped these laws (I didn't; I'm too young), but I
	doubt whether you or anyone considered their stance on BAC when
	voting.

Point 2:
	
	How about putting other abitrary limits that affect out lives up to
	vote?  Do you want the masses to decide how many parts per million
	of heavy metals are acceptable in our drinking water.  I am certainly
	unqualified to answer this, and have no desire to pick up that extra
	degree in biochemistry just to find out.

	In summary, no majoritarian opinion exists, and if it did, it would be
	unqualified.
-- 
-Tim Cuffel	Finger for PGP 2.1 

CIA, FBI, terrorism, assassination, cryptography, RSA, cocaine, DEA, Swiss bank
account.
Newsgroups: boulder.general
From: robinsmm@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (ROBINSON MARYBETH)
Subject: ROOMMATE WANTED
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:48:19 GMT




Roommate wanted for 4 bedroom townhome in Boulder.  Excellent location:
2nd and Spruce, easy walk to Pearl St. Mall and hiking trails.  

Current Residents: 2 females, 1 male, 1 dog (adorable, but no more pets)
Rent: $300/month + 2 months deposit (steep, but well worth it)
Available:  Immediately


We are a very active household consisting of two graduate students and
1 med. student.  Interests include cycling, skiing (all kinds), running,
hiking, cooking, reading, etc...  We are very independent people, but interact
well with each other.and occasionally have group dinners, barbecues and
weekend outings for breakfast.  

We are looking for an active roomie, considerate, clean and responsible. 
Good sense of humor is key to survival in our house!  

If this situation sounds attractive ot you, or you would like a little
more info, please e-mail to this account!  


MB


-- 
MaryBeth (MB) Robinson    		robinsmm@ucsu.Colorado.edu
Department of Chemistry
University of Colorado
Newsgroups: boulder.general
From: kj@solbourne.com (Ken Sullivan)
Newsgroups: boulder.general
Subject: Pool Table Wanted
Date: 15 Dec 1992 12:16:54 -0700
Organization: Solbourne Computer, Inc., Longmont, CO  USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: klondike.solbourne.com

Wanted to Buy!!!!!!!!

Slate Pool Table
Full Size, Used

Call Nelson @ 651-9058 after 4:30 pm


-- 
KJ Sullivan                    +               .   .   .   .   .   .   .
Solbourne Computer Support     +            :    :    :    :    :    :    :
kj@solbourne.com  800-447-2861 +         3     3     3     3     3     3     3
Cross-eyed Stereo Signature    +      D      D      D      D      D      D      D
Newsgroups: boulder.general
From: schramb@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Brian Schram)
Subject: motorcycle helmet wanted
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:02:20 GMT

Does anybody have a helmet that they'd like to get rid of?  i would
like a full face helmet in decent shape.  it can't be bright pink,
or Ninja green or anything gaudy like that.  in hats, i wear about a 
size 7 1/4.  lemme know if you can help.
-brian
schramb@ucsu.colorado.edu

Newsgroups: boulder.general
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: DUI stuff (my final posting)
Keywords: under the influence, neighborhood beat cops
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 18:46:36 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.194020.16377@claven.ucar.edu> woods@claven.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) writes:
>First off, I believe (and I don't think anyone would argue this) that the
>main goal should be to keep the drunks off the road.

I'd disagree: I think the goal should be reducing traffic accidents and
getting reckless drivers off the road (whether they are drunk or sober)
without punishing people who are driving safely.

>...The ONLY justification for punishing
>drunk drivers in terms of the stated goal of keeping drunks off the road
>is that the threat of punishment creates a deterrent effect.

If such a driver harms others (e.g. causes an accident), they should
be punished in proportion to the harm done, as a matter of justice
(all deterrent effects asside). Of course, this applies to all
reckless drivers, not just drunk drivers.

>Right now, the major thrust of our efforts to combat the DUI problem is
>increased penalties and enforcement, i.e. the emphasis is clearly on
>punishment, and the threat of punishment as a deterrent. But consider
>this: if the goal is to keep the drunks off the road, when a DUI
>offender is punished, we have ALREADY FAILED to achieve our goal.

You are presuming that offenders, if cought, are punished. Currently
there are mild penelties for DUI and DWAI, regardless of the harm
done: A person driving safely with a BAC of 0.055 faces the same
punishment as someone with a BAC of 0.095 who recklessly causes a 
serious accident. The penelties for endangering others are neither
in proportion to the harm done, nor sufficiently strict to act as
a deterrent. In part, this is becuase the current laws place 
someone who has caused no harm (and was not likely to) in the same
catagory as those who do, really, cause harm. To be fair to the
first, the latter are given too light a punishment.

>...It therefore stands to reason that we ought to be
>viewing punishment as a LAST RESORT, not as a major means to combat
>DUI.

Since sufficiently strict punishment has not been applied, I disagree
with your conclusion. I think punishment would be a very effective
deterrent, is anyone who negligently caused an accident was charged
with (say) reckless endangerment or attempted second degree murder.

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder
Newsgroups: boulder.general
From: rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: Boulder's character (Re: Overpopulation: where did it go?)
Organization: eklektix - Boulder, Colorado
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 05:39:49 GMT

murray@bullwinkle.raleigh.ibm.com (Charlie Murray) writes:
>...Last week I posted an article describing how Boulder is
>becoming too white and affluent, and I got only one response which
>basically asked "What's wrong with that?".  I feel, the Boulder that I
>know and love is fading away.

What can we say?  I saw what you wrote, but I certainly didn't have any
answers.  Yeah, Boulder ain't what it used to be.  What can we do?

(OK, I'm white and maybe affluent [I'm certainly not poor]...but what can I
do?  Move away?  Not clear that will help.:-)

People say things like "Boulder is a victim of its own success"...and sure,
it is.  So how do we set about failing?

Take housing prices.  Boulder is a desirable place to live, and one big
reason is that it hasn't been built out to the last square centimeter of
habitable land.  We could take off the planned growth, let building go
wild, and housing prices would drop (a) because it's not a tight market and
(b) because it would become a less desirable place to live.  Housing prices
keep going up...when people sell their houses, they don't *need* to price
them at whatever the market will bear, but it's unrealistic to expect them
not to do so. I don't see any plausible way to control the pricing.  (In
effect, we have local government controlling the supply of a commodity, but
no control over the effect this has on price of the commodity.)

Personally, I wish people would learn from what successes Boulder has had,
and apply the knowledge to their own cities and towns, instead of just
striking camp and moving here.
-- 
Dick Dunn    rcd@raven.eklektix.com   -or-   raven!rcd    Boulder, Colorado
	...Straight, but not narrow.
Newsgroups: boulder.general
From: tarrall@Colorado.EDU (Captain Neon)
Subject: Re: Insurance Rates ( was: Re: Drivers here are better than average! )
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: 12 Dec 92 01:45:18 GMT

kdlin@advtech.uswest.com (David Lin) writes:

[...]
>minimum liablity coverage plus comp. and collision coverages. For the
>same coverages (25/50), I "only" paid $1,100 in Santa Monica, CA.
>The agents here all blame it on my high perf. car, my young age ( 20's ),
>and marrital status. However, these items didn't change with my recent
>move from SM to Boulder.  Furthermore, for obvious reasons, I shouldn't 
>just get the minimum coverages, which drives my premium even higher. 
>Anyone know why I'm paying so much for the auto insurance here? Thanks.

Have you compared the prices for the various parts of your coverage?
Apprently rates here have undergone a recent increase (or will increase
soon, depending on the company) due in particular to hail damage.  I would
assume that companies are sophisticated enough to raise the price on
only the comprehensive portion of your insurance.

Another possibility is that accidents are more expensive here than in SM.
Perhaps the average car on the road here is more expensive, or the
drivers are more litiginous?  Could even be that the costs of auto repair
are higher around here.  Most likely it's a combination of some of the
above, *and* perhaps a higher accident rate...
							-Robert.-
Newsgroups: boulder.general
From: tarrall@Colorado.EDU (Captain Neon)
Subject: Re: Drivers here are better than average!
Keywords: under the influence, neighborhood beat cops
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: 12 Dec 92 20:28:54 GMT

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

>No, simply that no one be arrested until the police have _some_
>evidence of guilt. Sobriety check points stop everyone, without
>any evidence of their guilt, and require them to prove their
>innocence.

Basically, we as a society have built and paid for those roads, and
we've said that you have to be ready to prove that you're not
intoxicated if you want to drive your vehicle on them.  It's as simple
as that.

>Do you feel the same way about mandatory drug test for everyone? Certainly
>the principle is the same.

A mandatory drug test for everyone would certainly be a violation of
your rights...  This isn't mandatory.  You don't have to drive, and
has been stated many times, that's *not* violating your right to free
travel.

>Malicious intent is, essentially, the definition of a felony. Are

Wrong here.  You don't have to be *trying* to hurt someone to commit
a felony.  Good thing, too.  Otherwise you'll end up with idiotic
laws like Wyoming, which last I heard had a maximum penalty of 1 year
for vehicular manslaughter involving alcohol.  Found this out at
a Michelle Shocked concert... she had a friend whose mother was killed
by a severely intoxicated driver.  The driver had just gotten out of
jail a short time before... for killing someone while driving drunk.
He was sent back to jail, for another 1 year sentence.  He wasn't
out to hurt anybody - I doubt he hopped into his car thinking "boy,
I'm gonna nail somebody tonight!"  So, should we make sure he doesn't
get any really nasty penalties?

>Am I the only one bothered by this attitude of, "the loss of freedom
>seems worth it to me" and (by implication), "I don't care about anyone
>who's values on the subject disagree with mine or the majority's."

I sure am.  It presupposes that any of this is a violation of your
rights, and I'm certainly not willing to make that assumption.  No
one has yet shown that operating a private vehicle on public roads is a
right.

					-Robert.-
Newsgroups: boulder.general
From: kamil@alumni.cs.colorado.edu (Kamil Maheshwari)
Subject: Multi-optional air ticket for SALE.
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:46:31 GMT




===============================================================

I have a multi-optional ticket on North West Airlines which is
fully transferable. You can use this ticket(s) anytime you want.
There are no black out dates. Therefore they're good for last 
minute travel plans. I think they are good for atleast a year.
This is what its good for:


	    ONE roundtrip ticket to Europe (any time)

			      OR

	TWO roundtrip tickets anywhere in the continental U.S.

			      OR

	FOUR one-way tickets anywhere in the continental U.S.


For the options and freedom of flying at the last minute this
ticket will go to anyone offering $900 or more (obo). Please
reply ONLY if you're serious and with your offer. I'd reply 
within reasonable time.

kamil.

=============================================================
Newsgroups: boulder.general
From: robinsmm@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (ROBINSON MARYBETH)
Subject: Contact lenses
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:56:51 GMT


Hi!

I'm looking for a good place to get contact lenses (cheap, but a place
that is reliable and can be trusted) as well as an eye exam.  It's been
about two years since my prescription was updated, and things are starting
to get a little fuzzy  :-).  I'd like to do this soon, so pelase e-mail if
you have any suggestions!  

Thanks!

mb

-- 
MaryBeth (MB) Robinson    		robinsmm@ucsu.Colorado.edu
Department of Chemistry
University of Colorado
Newsgroups: boulder.general
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Drivers here are better than average!
Keywords: under the influence, neighborhood beat cops
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 19:05:13 GMT

In article <tarrall.724192134@qso> tarrall@Colorado.EDU (Captain Neon) writes:
>>No, simply that no one be arrested until the police have _some_
>>evidence of guilt. Sobriety check points stop everyone, without
>>any evidence of their guilt, and require them to prove their
>>innocence.

>Basically, we as a society have built and paid for those roads, and
>we've said that you have to be ready to prove that you're not
>intoxicated if you want to drive your vehicle on them.  It's as simple
>as that.

So, essentially, you don't mind the government violating people's 
rights, if the people are a limited group (drivers on public roads)
which are taking advantage of a government program (which, in 
theroy, they could avoid doing). Let's see where that logic takes
us...

>>Do you feel the same way about mandatory drug test for everyone? Certainly
>>the principle is the same.

>A mandatory drug test for everyone would certainly be a violation of
>your rights...  This isn't mandatory.  You don't have to drive, and
>has been stated many times, that's *not* violating your right to free
>travel.

From your remarks, can I assume you support mandatory drug tests for
all students in public schools and colleges, or even 
schools that receive some government grant money? After all, you don't
have to attend such a school and if you are going to benefit from
government-funded education (by your logic) isn't it reasonable for
the government to require that you prove you don't use drugs?
Similarly, what about employees of any company working on a government
contract, any employee of the government, anyone receiving welfare,
medicare, social security, unemployment payments, etc...? These are
all limited groups, which one can theoretically avoid being part
of, who are taking advantage of a government program. That seems to
be your criteria for sobriety check points, so how do you feel about
applying it to other things?

                                                Frank Crary
                                                CU Boulder
Newsgroups: boulder.general