HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jonc@ulysses.atmos.colostate.edu (Jon Cornick)
Subject: Hunting Report from Meeker
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 14:37:26 GMT
Organization: Atmos. Science, Colorado State Univ.
Keywords: Hunting Meeker Deer

 Hello All.  I've just returned from a hunting trip to the Meeker CO area.
I thought I'd pass along what I saw, so others on this net can plan ahead.
I checked in at the Chamber of Commerce and was shown where the public land
(BLM) was and how to get there.  Some ranchers with access to public lands
via their private property were charging $100 to go through their gate.
My party avoided those areas in favor of general access BLM land. 
 We started scouting in the southern portion of Game Managment Unit (GMU)
11, Colorow Gulch area.  A pipeline company was working the lands north of
Rio Blanco Resevoir, so no game were near that area.  Colorow gulch had only
one set of fresh tracks (one to three days old).  We then set sights on GMU
11 at the north end by the radio towers, up Greasewood and Yellow Creek.
 We saw only three does, but the ground was littered with dead carcasses for
miles around.  The dead deer were about 2-3 years old.  A large burned out
area just west and south of the radio towers was about as old. We surmised 
that a large herd population coupled with an immediate loss of habitat lead
to a massive killoff.  
 The farmers along the White River and the creeks north of Meeker have left
crops of hay and grass in the feilds.  All of this is on private land and
has attracted a large majority of the local herds, thus tying up the 
population into high priced hunting lands.  This also increases herd size, and
if the practice continues, will lead to dependency of the herd to local 
farmers.
 Returning home to Ft. Collins, we over-heard several hunters commenting on
how poor the hunting was this year, and how expensive the local land owners
have made the sport.
 
 Jon Cornick, Ft. Collins, CO
Newsgroups: co.general
From: gauss@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (GAUSS  REBECCA BANKER)
Subject:  Fiddler on the Roof, in Longmont
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 11:47:00 GMT

Opening Friday, October 16, and running Friday and Saturdays from Oct 16
through Nov 7, the Longmont Theatre Company presents FIDDLER ON THE ROOF.
I saw the dress rehursal on Oct 14 and the show is in good shape.  I had
to be there, after all for I (this is Ed, not Rebecca) have a small part.
I'm the guy waving the stick in the publicity photo on the front of the
Longmont Performing Arts Center, the former Trojan movie house, near 5th
on Main in Longmont.  The Longmont TIMES-CALL is supposed to be running an
article on the show today Oct 15.  Tickets are sold movie house style: with
no reserved seats and tickets sold at the door.  The curtain time is 7:30.
For opening night, there is some sort of a gala at intermission.

Tickets are $8, with seniors paying only $7 and children under 18 admitted
for $6.  Call 772-5452 for more information or email me at:

                                   Ed Gauss
                                   gauss@alumni.caltech.edu


Newsgroups: co.general
From: jsnyder@niwot.scd.ucar.edu (Joe Snyder)
Subject: need Oracle programmer parttime
Organization: Scientific Computing Divison/NCAR Boulder, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:49:46 GMT

Job opening:

Boulder County Information Services Division
Programmer/Analyst $15/hr
Position Description:
Database application programming with Oracle. Must be experienced with
Oracle Tools: Forms, Menu, and ReportWriter.  Minimum 20 hour per week,
October-December 1992.

The position requires programming a database application using a client/
server environment.  The Oracle Tools will operate on a PC under MS-DOS
communicating over a Local Area Network to an Oracle server running on a
Novell Netware 3.11 file server.  The application is being ported from a
minicomputer environment and requires minimal application design.

Evaluation of applications will begin October 16. Applications will be 
accepted until the position is filled.

Apply in writing (not e-mail) to
Human Resources
Boulder County
P.O. Box 471
Boulder, CO 80306

Newsgroups: co.general
From: dcm@teal.csn.org (David C. Menges)
Subject: Re: GIS In The Rockies
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:08:01 GMT

In article <Bw0p04.Eso@csn.org> dcm@teal.csn.org (David C. Menges) writes:
>			GIS IN THE ROCKIES
>
>The Fourth Annual GIS In The Rockies conference will be held Oct 14-16
>...

People are asking me what GIS stands for.  I don't know, and the pamphlet
I was posting it from for someone didn't say.  Geographic Information
Systems, I think - graphics like Landsat images for geology types, perhaps.
I figured those who would be interested in attending would know.
Newsgroups: co.general,boulder.general
From: aa0fm@vexcel.com (Zach)
Subject: Places to stay in the Ouray area
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 15:30:17 GMT

My wife and I are planning to go to the Ouray area around thanksgiving (our 
first time there), and would like suggestions on places to stay (hotels, etc.).
Please email responses: <aa0fm@vexcel.com>.  Thanks for all of the great
information I am going to receive!
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Cable Prices
Date: 9 Oct 92 23:00:33 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: Alpha Science Computer Network, Denver, Co.

In article <1992Oct9.102230.13288@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu+ kisaacso@nyx.cs.du.edu (Kevin Isaacson) writes:
+Hey, I'm getting an apartment in Denver near Leetsdale and Quebec and I will
+finally be able to get cable.  I haven't subscribed to a cable service here
+in the metro area before and I was wondering:
+  
+a.  Which cable company covers that area?  Is it Mile High?
+
If you are in the city and county of Denver, then it is Mile Hi.

+b.  What are their rates like?  I mean for basic service, premium channels,
+    installation, any extra charges for a box or remote.  
+ 
The basic service rate is $21.43/month. Premium channel used to be $8 each,
but I think they are closer to $12 now. No charge for the box or remote.

+Also, what's the word on the Sci Fi channel?  I heard that Mile High might,
+or might not be carrying it, any recent developments?
+ 
No Sci Fi channel yet. I haven't heard anything whether they will or not.
It would be nice. They certainly have room for it. 

+Kevin Isaacson
+kisaacso@nyx.cs.du.edu


-- 
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom)  Tumbra, Zorkovick; Sparkula zoom krackadomando.  
Newsgroups: co.general,cu.general,boulder.general
From: burkel@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Dealing with the Dead)
Subject: rental (short-term) wanted
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 22:49:44 GMT




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

	University of Washington Associate Professor (retired) wants
	rental in Boulder, Colorado:

	Small house, furnished, from mid or late October
	for 2 to 3 months.

	Send e-mail, write, or call collect:

	   Sam McLean
	   8220 23rd Ave. N.E.
	   Seattle, Washington  98115

telephone: (206) 524-7263
    email: birnbaum@math.washington.edu

	Reposting of a hardcopy of this ad, in any visible place
	will be greatly appreciated.
From: kisaacso@nyx.cs.du.edu (Kevin Isaacson)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Cable Prices
Date: 9 Oct 92 10:22:30 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.

Hey, I'm getting an apartment in Denver near Leetsdale and Quebec and I will
finally be able to get cable.  I haven't subscribed to a cable service here
in the metro area before and I was wondering:
  
a.  Which cable company covers that area?  Is it Mile High?

b.  What are their rates like?  I mean for basic service, premium channels,
    installation, any extra charges for a box or remote.  
 
Also, what's the word on the Sci Fi channel?  I heard that Mile High might,
or might not be carrying it, any recent developments?
 
Kevin Isaacson
kisaacso@nyx.cs.du.edu
Newsgroups: co.general
From: terryg@stortek.com (terry gottehrer)
Subject: FOR SALE: RX-7
Organization: StorageTek
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 15:59:38 GMT


For Sale - '83 Mazda RX-7 GSL

Original Owner
Low miles - 85,000
Complete maintenance/repair records
Garaged every night
Charcoal Grey
Excellent Condition - Body, Interior, under hood
5-speed manual transmission
GSL Package includes the following:
	AM/FM Cassette w/Equalizer
	Power Steering/Power 4-wheel disc brakes/Power Windows/Power Mirrors
	A/C
	Cruise Control
	Sunroof
	Rear Window Wiper/Defrost
	Leather Interior
Extras:
	Fender Bra
	Rear Window Louvre
	Mazda RX-7 Shop Manual


$4,100


Contact Terry

(H) 666-5794
(W) 673-4943
email: Terry_Gottehrer@stortek.com

--
Terry_Gottehrer@stortek.com
Louisville, CO (by Boulder,Longmont,Denver)
(303)673-4943
Newsgroups: co.general
From: matthews_k@cubldr.colorado.edu
Subject: Cable TV Twilight Zone
Followup-To: co.general,boulder.general
X-Newsgroups: boulder.general
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 22:41:34 GMT
X-From: matthews_k@cubldr.colorado.edu

X-Sender: news@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (USENET News System)
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: gold.colorado.edu
X-Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
X-Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 22:36:10 GMT

Ever since we moved into our house just off north 30th we've been
trying to get cable TV.  We're in the Jones Intercable area, but
every time we call and ask to be wired, they tell us someone is
"blocking access" to our house.  Now, our landlord says it's fine
with him, and the neighbor two doors away has it, but we can't get
it!  Does anyone else have experience with a similar situation?
We think they just don't want to go to the trouble of wiring the 
house, since our next-door neighbors moved several months ago, and
they were the only ones we could think of who COULD be blocking 
access.  Help!  Any ideas?  We WANT to waste our hard-earned dollars
on cable, but they won't let us!  :-)

Anxiously awaiting ideas

Kellie M-S
internet::matthews_k@cubldr.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: co.general
From: has3@manfrd (Harry Schroeder)
Subject: Re: Cable Prices
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: co
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 00:37:11 GMT

Wow, Colorado Springs now has the SCI-FI channel on channel 51. Ahead of
Denver for a change. :-)>

Has3
--
*****************************************************************************
Harry Schroeder                                     Digital Equipment Corp.
719-548-2678                                        MCI Account Sales Support
has3@manfrd.cxo.dec.com

"My trouble is I analyze life instead of live it" - Hugh Prather
*****************************************************************************
From: tmcintyr@nyx.cs.du.edu
Newsgroups: co.media.rmn
Subject: well?
Date: 14 Oct 92 16:16:22 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.


I say...whats with this category? Unattended waif? Obscure blight?
Right wing wacko controlled media? Jet fuel now loaded...TORCH ON....
...........................................................      .....
From: jvilhube@diana.cair.du.edu (Jan Vilhuber)
Newsgroups: co.media.rmn
Subject: Re: well?
Date: 14 Oct 92 16:53:40 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: University of Denver, Denver, Colorado

In article <1992Oct14.161622.29829@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tmcintyr@nyx.cs.du.edu () writes:
>
>I say...whats with this category? Unattended waif? Obscure blight?
>Right wing wacko controlled media? Jet fuel now loaded...TORCH ON....
>...........................................................      .....
>
Yea.. what DID happen to rmn?

-- 
 Jan Vilhuber            | Internet: jvilhube@du.edu or jvilhube@[130.253.1.4]
 (The skydivin' Bass)      | Bitnet  : jvilhube@DUCAIR
--------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: =>School Vouchers (Amendment 7)<=
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 15:27:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.131817.20708@colorado.edu> weverka <weverka@drip.colorado.edu> writes:

I can't tell if this is satire or not. In any case, there are a inaccuracies...

>Yeah, and if it works we can use vouchers for Police too.

>Today some people who can afford it, send their kids to private school,
>just as some people who can afford it buy the services of a private
>security firm to protect their house. 

The assumption that otuside agencies are required for this is ammusing.
 
>...If school vouchers work by allowing less well
>off people to afford private schools, police vouchers ought to work in
>the police system by providing private security for the less well off
>people.  Of course people will be allowed to spend their vouchers on the
>city police force as well.

There is a _big_ difference between the police and private security: 
The police have no legal responsibility what so ever to protect 
individuals from crime. Private securtiy is, at least, required under
contract to protect the person paying them.

The analogy would only work if public schools were required to promote
education in general, but not necessarily to teach a particular
student unless they choose to. Instead, public schools are required to
teach all individuals.

>...and if it works we can use vouchers for the Military too.
>Today some people who can afford it send money to private armies.

Not legally.

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder

Newsgroups: co.politics
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: =>School Vouchers (Amendment 7)<=
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 17:06:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.035757.202@ncar.ucar.edu> pack@acd.acd.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) writes:
>The vouchers presumably will be redeemable for cash by the school.
>If the school is a home teacher teaching only religious drivel to
>their children, I think this is a poor use of scarce educational
>funds.  If the school is a larger scale scam where parents take a
>cut, then we have another misuse of funds.

>Even if the "school" in question is not clearly a scam, it still
>might be an educational joke.  Regulation and accreditation are
>clearly needed.  

Public and private schools are already accredited by national
and regional organizations (mainly so colleges will know if a
someone applying to enter college actually has a meaningful 
high school diploma.) I think the vouchers would only be 
useable in acredited schools.

>The argument that competition between schools
>will mean the best will win out assumes that parents are caring
>and informed consumers.  Unfortunately, this is not always true
>on either count.

In which case, they would probably follow the path of least 
resistance and leave thier children in the public schools

                                            Frank Crary
                                            CU Boulder

Newsgroups: co.politics
From: juola@bruno.cs.colorado.edu (Patrick Juola)
Subject: Re: =>School Vouchers (Amendment 7)<=
Keywords: Education
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:06:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.035745.28022@oldcolo.com> swoodcoc@oldcolo.com (Steven Woodcock) writes:
>   On a separate but related not, I violently disagree with the premise
>that anyone WITHOUT kids should have to pay taxes to support public
>education at all.  Yes, I do indeed believe that educating our children
>is our best hope for the future, but I >>>shouldn't<<< be forced to pay
>for it.  Convince me it's a good idea, show me how it helps me, but DON'T
>force me.


Unfortunately, it's arguments like this that get us in messes like the
current one.  

Public Education is an investment in the infrastructure.  Would you
also argue that if you don't drive, you shouldn't have to pay for roads
(and therefore public access for fire trucks, ambulances, &c?)  The
doctors who treat you for medical emergencies, the telephone operators
who let you talk to the world, the engineers who build the computers
you type on are mostly products of public schooling.  Unless you're
*completely* self-sufficient, you're a drain on public resources every
time you get change from a $20.

And it's eminently reasonable that you should have to pay for the
ability to change a $20.

	- kitten
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: vicki@steam.atd.ucar.edu (Vicki Holzhauer)
Subject: Re: =>School Vouchers (Amendment 7)<=
Organization: Atmospheric Technology Division/NCAR Boulder, CO
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:02:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.053636@eklektix.com> rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn) writes:
>
>I can see that we've got a real problem with the public schools, and I know
>that some parents (particularly now) will decide to spend the extra money
>for a private school.  But I don't see the point in encouraging motion away
>from public schools instead of fixing them...and I surely can't see any way
>to excuse siphoning off everyone's money for private schools.

I agree completely, Dick.  I think that public schools can be made to
work and that encouraging movement of students out of those schools
will only make it less likely that anyone will take the time and
effort to fix them.  The voucher concept seems basically elitist
anyway ... from what I've read, parents will get a voucher for
$2200-2500 to use as they choose, but private school tuition is
considerably higher than that.  This means that poorer parents will
still be forced to send their children to public schools.  If only
poorer children are left in the schools, no one will feel that the
problems of schools are worth fixing.  Our schools would be in danger
of eventually becoming like inner-city ghetto schools where a
declining number of dedicated staff fight against increasing odds to
turn out a quality product.

Personally, I favor a tax check-off on the Colorado Income Tax form.
Why not see if those of us who are earning money would like to send
some of it back to our local school systems (as opposed to a sales
tax, which hits everyone)?  I don't have children, but I believe in
education.  I would be happy to give something back via this option,
but I will not vote to pay for people to send their children to
private or religious schools.


--
Vicki Holzhauer, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Boulder, Colorado / / / /  vicki@ncar.ucar.edu
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: rosinski@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Jim Rosinski)
Subject: Re: =>School Vouchers (Amendment 7)<=
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 03:42:03 GMT

I wrote:

>>Before making up your mind on Amendment 7, ask yourself why it is that the
>>group screaming loudest against School Vouchers is the Teacher's union.  If
>>something smells rotten, it probably is.

Dick Dunn responded:

>This is completely _ad_hominem_.

I plead guilty.

>If you believe that the teachers are objecting to the amendment for invalid
>reasons, then say so, and say why their objections are invalid.  Don't just
>attack them because they're teachers.

My hostility toward the Teacher's union is driven by three major
considerations: 

1) They have been adamantly and persistently opposed to replacing the
existing seniority-based salary structure with one that is merit-based.  A
seniority-based system attracts the laziest, lowest quality worker
interested only in a secure job, while discouraging the talented, inovative
employee who knows there's nothing in it for him even if he does an
exemplary job. 

2) They fear the added competition that would inevitably result when more
parents are given the freedom to choose which school their children will
attend, yet don't have the integrity to admit it.  They prefer to hide
behind smokescreens like "separation of church and state", and charges of
"elitism".  I find this gutless attitude thoroughly repugnant.

3) In spite of overwhelming evidence that the quality of their product is
abysmal and getting worse, they refuse to consider any substantive change to
the existing system which might serve to weaken their effective monopoly.
We hear only demands for the taxpayer to ante up ever increasing sums of
their hard-earned dollars to bail out the decaying, moribund system of
public education.


Jim Rosinski
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: Re: =>School Vouchers (Amendment 7)<=
Organization: eklektix - Boulder, Colorado
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:46:33 GMT

rosinski@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Jim Rosinski) writes:
...
>Before making up your mind on Amendment 7, ask yourself why it is that the
>group screaming loudest against School Vouchers is the Teacher's union.  If
>something smells rotten, it probably is.

This is completely _ad_hominem_.

If you believe that the teachers are objecting to the amendment for invalid
reasons, then say so, and say why their objections are invalid.  Don't just
attack them because they're teachers.

There is nothing wrong with the folks who have vested interests in an issue
expressing their opinions on the issue.  If their reasons make sense, they
deserve careful thought.  If they don't make sense, or they're just
covering their asses, then challenge on the basis of their reasoning, not
on the basis of who they are.

I suspect that teachers don't have anything to lose if vouchers are
approved--after all, it's unlikely to decrease either the number of
teachers required or the average salary.  If anything, I'd expect both of
those to increase slightly.  It would shift some teachers from public to
private schools, of course.  Nor do I believe the present failure of the
public schools is primarily the fault of teachers.
-- 
Dick Dunn    rcd@raven.eklektix.com   -or-   raven!rcd    Boulder, Colorado
   ...Never offend with style when you can offend with substance.
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: woods@claven.ucar.edu (Greg Woods)
Subject: Re: =>School Vouchers (Amendment 7)<=
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR Boulder, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:05:06 GMT

I was surprised to find that even the ACLU (yes, George, I am a "card-carrying
member") is opposing Amendment 7. The ACLU's main objection is that vouchers
that can be used at religious schools violate the separation of church
and state as required by the first amendment to the United States
Constitution. If parents want to indoctrinate their children in a 
particular religion, that is their right, but they shouldn't be doing
it with *my* tax money.

The Libertarian in me likes the idea of vouchers and dislikes the very 
concept of government-run schools period. But I consider the omission
of a prohibition against using public money to support religious schools
to be a fatal flaw. I will reluctantly have to vote against Amendment 7.

--Greg
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: =>School Vouchers (Amendment 7)<=
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 16:58:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.160506.15559@claven.ucar.edu> woods@claven.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) writes:
>I was surprised to find that even the ACLU (yes, George, I am a "card-carrying
>member") is opposing Amendment 7. The ACLU's main objection is that vouchers
>that can be used at religious schools violate the separation of church
>and state as required by the first amendment to the United States
>Constitution...

How is this any different from students at private, religious colleges
who can receve federal scholarships, loans, etc...? No one seems to 
object to this practice.

                                               Frank Crary
                                               CU Boulder
Newsgroups: co.politics