HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern)
Subject: Re: Request for Comments: co.ocs, co.politics.amend2.{info,discuss}
Organization: NCAR/UCAR
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:19:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.233328.332@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt) writes:
> In <1992Nov9.184111.5685@colorado.edu> tim@refuge.Colorado.EDU (Tim Hunter) writes:
> 
> >co.politics.amend2.{info,discuss} - most of the discussion on the
> >	general newsgroups for co, boulder, and cu, in addition to the
> >	co.politics newsgroup has been the recent passage of amendment
> >	2.  These newsgroups are intended to provide a specific place
> >	to discuss the issues surrounding amendment 2 and to get clear
> >	information about the amendment and it's legal implications.
> >	The info group is moderated, and will attempt to present both
> >	sides of the issue fairly.  The moderators are:
> 
> >		jules@cs.colorado.edu	(Julie DiBiase)
> >		blough@cs.colorado.edu	(Eric Blough)
> >		gina@cs.colorado.edu	(Gina Cherry)
> 
> Is this an attempt to "rid" co.general of this discussion?  Or an
> attempt to augment it?
> 
> My hunch is that the topic will die down in co.general after a while,
> until the next election at which time I have a hunch there will be a
> "repeal the CFV amendment" round of postings.
> 
> Frankly, I'm glad to see co.general get the traffic.

I think that Amendment 2 is an appropriate topic for co.politics.  Where,
coincidentally, a discussion is ongoing.  Therefore, I see no reason
for the new groups just for Amendment 2.

I'd rather direct political discussion out of co.general and into
co.politics.  I'd rather not have a whole new group just for Amendment 2.

-- 
/\     There may be honor among thieves, but there's none among politicians.
  \_][ <--NCAR Ilana Stern dod#009 r.b. cliff swallow ilana@ncar.ucar.edu    
      \______________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: co.general
From: mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella)
Subject: Re: Amendment #2
Reply-To: marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:51:32 GMT

Laura Johnson (lpj@col.hp.com) wrote:
: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:
: > But it is already legal to deny people housing based on lifestyle choices--
: > just look at any condo or apartment complex that bars children.  If the
: > "breeder" lifestyle is not protected, I see no reason why other lifestyles
: > should be any more priviledged.
: 
: Wrong, this was made illegal a couple years ago. (No, I don't have the
: references. Do the rest of you really keep tonlots of newspapers just in
: case you need to quote them on notes?) Anyway, only "senior citizens
: complexes" may now bar families with kids, I believe. FWIW.

Regardless of the specifics of the law, the point is, families with children
have the recourse to try to get laws like this passed.  So does any other group
that feels it is being discriminated against, except, now, for homosexuals -
the only group constituionally prevented from becoming protected in this
manner.

--
Amendment 2 - Shame On You, Colorado
--
Marc Sabatella
marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
--
a disgusted resident of the first state in history of the union
to enact a constitutional amendment that explicitly legalizes discrimination
against a particular minority
--
All opinions expressed herein are my personal ones
and do not necessarily reflect those of HP or anyone else.
Newsgroups: co.general
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: What happened to all the referenda... RESULTS
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:36:54 GMT

>In article <1992Nov5.214917.28857@mercury.cair.du.edu> ptripp@diana.cair.du.edu (Phil Tripp) writes:
>
>>You know, everyone is calling this a hate issue, etc.  I don't see
>>it that way at all.  It is really a matter of special rights and
>>privileges.  Colorado voters have decided not to grant special rights
>>to homosexuals.  It doesn't mean anyone hates anyone.  

Phil, you haven't read the amendment carefully enough.


-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: co.general
From: marks@ssdevo.enet.dec.com (Randy Marks)
Subject: Re: Constitutionality of Amendment 2
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Colorado Springs
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:46:54 GMT


In article <1992Nov9.050442.2832@col.hp.com>, kary@col.hp.com (Dan Kary) writes...
> 
>I am not a lawyer, that is a trait that I am sure I share with almost
>everyone who reads or posts messages in this group.
I concur.

> 
>I have heard that the cities of Aspen, Boulder and Denver plan to (or
>perhaps already have) file suits claiming that Amendment 2 is unconstitutional.
>One of the basis for their claim is that those cities constitutional home
>rule is violated.  I believe I even heard Roy Romer repeat this argument.
>That argument seems like a legal looser to me.  It seems to me that no
>amendment to a constitution (U.S. or state) can violate that constitution.
>The amendment specifically changes the constitution.  Laws can be held 
>unconstitutional, but amendments by definition can not.

A state's constitution (and its ammendments) cannot contradict the
US constitution.  As far as I can tell, the potential unconstitutionality
of Amendment 2 is an issue only at the US Supreme court level.

	Randy Marks
(UUCP)	                {decvax,ucbvax,allegra}!decwrl!ssdevo.enet!marks
(INTERNET)              marks@ssdevo.enet.dec.com
(domain-based INTERNET) marks%ssdevo.enet@decwrl.dec.com
..........................................................................
	"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe
	while the legislature is in session."
..........................................................................
Newsgroups: co.general
From: mgooley@advtech.uswest.com (Mark. Gooley)
Subject: Re: Leinenkugels (Was:Info on local tavern that has Packer games, Brats.
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 22:09:53 GMT

In article <Bx7KI0.Htu@da_vinci.it.uswc.uswest.com> ljlucas@lookout.it.uswc.uswest.com (Lori Lucas) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.210840.25685@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> canderso@nyx.UUCP (Chuck Anderson) writes:
>>I've seen Leinenkugels Limited for sale in Boulder.  I'm not sure if it's 
>>still around or not.  I had it on tap at a Boulder restaurant, too.
>>
>>BLECHHHH!
>>
>>I had "leinies" 9 or 10 years ago when I was in Ill., and yes it was a
>>sehr gut bier.  This new stuff is as bad as Corona; ptooey!
>>
>
>So it's not my imagination!  I knew it didn't taste the same!
>			Lori Lucas
>
Leinenkugel's was bought out a while back by some major brewer.  The
quality has gone from acceptable to unacceptable since then.  Even the
bock is not what it was (though it's still on the borderline of drinkable).

Big brewers always try to save money by using cheaper ingredients and
always try to enlarge the market by catering to people who don't know
what beer is supposed to taste like.  "Ick!  It's got an *aftertaste*!"
says some nebech, and the order comes down from above that the icky
aftertaste be extirpated...

Mark., weep for another decent beer ruined
mgooley@advtech.uswest.com
Newsgroups: co.general
From: mcclell@convex.com (Alan McClellan)
Subject: Ticket to Santa Barbara
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 15:43:03 GMT
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.

For Sale
--------

What: 		One-way ticket [United Airlines] from 
      		Colorado Springs/Denver to Santa Barbara.

Date: 		Monday, November 23

How Much:	$120 o.b.o.


-Alan
mcclell@convex.COM
From: imp@solbourne.com (Warner Losh)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Amendment 2
Date: 10 Nov 1992 10:26:39 -0700
Organization: ParcPlace Boulder
Distribution: co
NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin-gw.solbourne.com

In article <1992Nov9.143812.8402@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu
(Gary Strand) writes: 
>  The USC doesn't endow rights. It limits the federal government's power.

This is flat out wrong.  Almost all of the amendments to the USC grant
specific or general rights to the people.  The original body of the
USC didn't say word one about citizen's rights, but the USC as it
stands today says quite a bit about it.

Warner


-- 
Warner Losh		imp@parcplace.COM	ParcPlace Boulder
I've almost finished my brute force solution to subtlety.
Newsgroups: co.general
From: pack@acd.acd.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman)
Subject: Re: YA Safeway Slam
Summary: the card benefits have ended 
Organization: Ntl Center for Atmospheric Research, Atmospheric Chemistry
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:53:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.083046@eklektix.com> rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn) writes:
>
>Look at their "preferred customer" card--you get a card you supply every
>time you shop.  It gives you a check ID.  It gives you coupons at the end
>of the month, for products you buy...

Safeway still uses the preferred customer card for check verification,
but they no longer use it to record purchases and give coupons through
the mail.  The reason I heard of was that the company doing this for
them didn't want to continue or wanted more money to do it.  This changed
just a few months ago.

--
Dan Packman     NCAR                             INTERNET: pack@ncar.UCAR.EDU
(303) 497-1427  P.O. Box 3000
                Boulder, CO  80307-3000        NSI/DECNET: 9583::PACK
Newsgroups: co.general
From: juola@bruno.cs.colorado.edu (Patrick Juola)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:38:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.202700.4436@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> jill@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Jill Lundquist) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.143812.8402@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>>
>>  The USC doesn't endow rights. It limits the federal government's power.
>
>No, the body of the Constitution doesn't endow rights.  I haven't
>read the whole document from beginning to end in quite a while,
>but I would swear that I seem to remember *something* about the
>first ten amendments to the Constitution enumerating quite a few
>rights...
>

Well, sort of.  The first *nine* amendments enumerate certain rights, and
the tenth guarantees all the other ones that weren't actually mentioned
by name.  8-)   That was actually one of the early arguments *against*
the Constitution/Bill of Rights -- that by naming only certain rights
in the document, that it would be argued that no others existed.

(Sorry, Jill.  You walked into that one.)
	- kitten
Newsgroups: co.general
From: lpj@col.hp.com (Laura Johnson)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 23:13:18 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

ljlucas@lookout.it.uswc.uswest.com (Lori Lucas) writes:
> suburbs right around it.  he Boulder paper said that the City of Boulder will
> be initiating a lawsuit about the constitutionality of 2.  Are any over the 
> other cities planning a similar move?
> 
> 				Lori Lucas

Yes, Denver Post 11/5/92 said that Denver will be filing suit.
-- 
Laura Johnson
lpj@hpctdls.col.hp.com
Opinions expressed are my own, but may be licensed for a nominal fee.
From: aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: YA Safeway Slam
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:33:46 GMT
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.

In <1992Nov9.031754.5075@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>In article <1992Nov8.212951.9543@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt) writes:
>>I didn't say capitalism was bad, but it needs to be tempered.  Anything
>>taken to extremes is usually bad, as is "pure capitalism".  (If it worked
>>we wouldn't need ANY regulations, eh?)

>How exactly, do you know this? I don't recall a total lack of economic
>regulation having ever been tried.

I'd say it's never been tried because it's so obvious it can't work!

And in micro-problems where there have been no regulations, regulations
have been created.

>>This is one place where the press serves a valid function, pointing out
>>"micro" problems that the goverment is too big to deal with.

>Since the government regulations aren't (as you point out) enforced and
>the matter is delt with on pressure from the press and consumers, 
>what is the point of the regulations?

(a) It shows those who are regulated what they "ought" to do, and I think
a high percentage do.  (b) When gross cases of violation are found, there
is a mechanism in place to deal with it.  However, gross cases are fewer,
because of (a) and the threat of (b).
-- 

Andrew Burt 		   					  aburt@du.edu

"But if he was dying he wouldn't bother to carve "Aaaaargh", he'd just say it."
From: elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu (Eric LeSatz)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Amend. 2, What it means or doesn't mean.
Date: 8 Nov 92 20:37:33 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: University of Denver, Denver, Colorado

In article <1992Nov8.190723.6525@mercury.cair.du.edu> jvilhube@diana.cair.du.edu (Jan Vilhuber) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.082557.29333@mercury.cair.du.edu> elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu (Eric LeSatz) writes:
>>It's quite clear to me that the supporters of 2 are the bigots and
>>stereotypers in this case. They are labeling anyone who voted for 2 as
>>hating gays. I voted for 2 and could care less what you do in bed and
>>certinly don't hate anyone. I just see my rights slowly dissolving
>>away because everyone else is getting special protection. I think
>>people are damn tired of it!
>>
>Whoa. One second, eric. The supporttes of 2 voted yes. The foes voted No.
>Either you meant to say that "the FOES of 2 are the bigots...", or you
>plain misunderstood the whole amendment.

You're right Jan and thanks for catching my error! I meant the no on 2
people are the stereotypers. Typed that last night in the 1st degree
and didn't proofread.

Eric
From: wdwells@nyx.cs.du.edu (David "Fuzzy" Wells)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: What happened to all the referenda... RESULTS
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:42:21 GMT
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.

>Results of Colorado Amdendment Ballot questions:
>----------------------------------------------
>Amendment 2: (homosexual rights)
>	YES: 54%	(a sad comment on our state, IMHO)
>	NO:  46%	

I was happy to hear of all the conventions that are being moved due to
this ammendment.  I also hope that Apple has the guts to fight against
Ammendment 2 or at least move away to a state that doesn't promote
hatred.  (They posted large ads in the Springs paper for No on 2)  Most
Silicon Valley companies that are moving to Colorado have protection for
gay employees in their charters and were obviously disturbed as to the
passing of Ammendment 2.

With luck, ski/tourist season will be disasterous as well.  Colorado 
should realize that it screw up with this one.

Ammendment 2 will die.  It will just take the Supreme Court (or a massive
increase in intelligence from the average Colorado voter, which assumes
too much, I know) to overrule this "law".

				Fuzzy.
Newsgroups: co.general
From: lpj@col.hp.com (Laura Johnson)
Subject: Re: What happened to all the referenda... RESULTS
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:20:14 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella) writes:

>some stuff I agree with, deleted

> What does appear, however, is the phrase "claim of discrimination", in the
> context of "things being homosexual does not entitle you to".  This now makes

I have just been told (by a supporter of 2) that although this phrase appears
in the ballot summary, neither the phrase nor the intent of legalizing
discrimination appears in the amendment itself. Please don't flame me, this
is my interpretation of something I just heard. What I'd like to know is
if anyone out there has the whole text of the amendment, and could either
post it, or post those parts if any that seem to be relevant to legalized
discrimination?

Thanks in advance to anyone who might be kindhearted enough to type all
that (I think it's about a 2-pager) in!
-- 
Laura Johnson
lpj@hpctdls.col.hp.com
Opinions expressed are my own, but may be licensed for a nominal fee.
Newsgroups: co.general
From: lpj@col.hp.com (Laura Johnson)
Subject: Re: Amendment #2
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:10:46 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

valeria@lamar.ColoState.EDU () writes:
> 
> 	Shall there be an Amendment to Article II of the Colorado Constitution
> 	to prohibit the state of Colorado and any of its political subdivisions
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 	from adopting or enforcing any law or policy which provides that
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 	homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, or relationships
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 	constitutes or entitles a person to claim any minority or protected
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 	status,quota preferences, or discrimination.
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> My question to the fools and idiots is: Where in the law does it say that
> 
> discrimation is lawful. Once again the press, the gay rights groups and the
> 

Where I underlined it. "Prohibit enforcing any law or policy that entitles
a [gay] person to claim discrimination [because they are gay]" is a fair 
paraphrase. So is "legalize discrimination against gays." You moron.*

*just trying to keep the tone of the discussion at your level.
-- 
Laura Johnson
lpj@hpctdls.col.hp.com
Opinions expressed are my own, but may be licensed for a nominal fee.
Newsgroups: co.general
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Software Piracy Forum
Summary: Forum 11/20/92 on felonization of software piracy
Keywords: Software Piracy Felony
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Distribution: co
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 14:30:10 GMT


Friday, November 20, 1992, the Rocky Mountain Computer and
Technology Forum will be discussing software piracy, especially
in view of recent revisions to 18 U.S.C. Section 2319 making it 
a felony to copy 10 or more works, or works with a value of 
$2,500 within a 6 month period. 

The bill making copyright infringement a felony was championed by 
the Software Publishers Association (SPA). It was also supported
by Nintendo. The IEEE testified against the bill.

Included on the panel is Bruce E. Hayden, Esq. an intellectual
property attorney whose practice emphasizes computer law issues.
There should be at least one more attorney on the panel, hopefully
a prosecutor, present or former, to speak of the technical  
requirements of the felony, especially as to the intent required.

The monthly (during the school year) Rocky Mountain Computer and
Technology Forums are lively discussions of current events, especially
at the intersection of computers, software, and the law. There are
invariably outspoken partisans on opposite sides of each issue, 
adding to the debate. 

Attorneys can obtain up to 2 Continuing Legal Education (CLE) credits
for attending. However, one need not be an attorney to attend. Indeed,
in the last year, many of the forums have had more non-attorneys present.
You are encouraged to bring a brown bag lunch and participate in the debate.

The forum is being held in the Barrett Room, Second Floor, Porter
Administration Building, University of Denver College of Law, 
7039 East 18th Avenue, Denver. This is the building just south of 
the Lowell Thomas Law Center located at 19th and Olive. 
Newsgroups: co.general
From: tmayer@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Tom Mayer)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:33:44 GMT

In article <1dos30INNspb@marvin.solbourne.com> imp@solbourne.com (Warner Losh) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.033429.13324@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
>pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes: 

>>Now I ask, which of the rights *protected by the United States constitution*
>>are denied gays and lesbians as a result of No. 2?
>
>The Fourteenth Amendment grants equal protection for all citizens of
>the US.  Amendment 2 specifically denies homosexuals this equal
>protection by allowing people to discriminate against them w/o any
>legal recourse on the injured party's part.
>
>>Employment and housing are *not* constitutional rights.  The Soviet
>>constitution guarenteed [sic] everyone a job, but the Soviet
>>constitution didn't work out very well. 
>
>I don't buy this.  Can you post a reference to a court case that this
>was decided in?  Can someone else post a reference to a case where it
>was established?  I recall from my civics class in HS that this was a
>basic right, but I no longer have my books to look up the specific
>cases that established this.
>

>Warner Losh		imp@parcplace.COM	ParcPlace Boulder
>I've almost finished my brute force solution to subtlety.


	Warner is right about a possible legal challenge to Amend. 2
	based on the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

	It is true in general that employment & housing are not covered as
	constitutional rights.  Constituional rights generally protect the
	individual against incursions of governmental power.  Laws governing
	employment & housing in the private sector are referred to as
	civil rights.  These laws would include all laws protecting 
	affected groups against descrimination in housing, employment,
	accomodations, etc.

	


				Tom Mayer

	
				NCAR, Boulder, Co.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Newsgroups: co.general
From: dcm@csn.org (David C. Menges)
Subject: Virtual reality art display
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Distribution: co
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:39:43 GMT

Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 13:24:15 -0700
From: Terry Smith <ters>
To: k12@csn.org
Subject: VR ART EXHIBIT

Here's something you might find interesting:

 
NEW PARADIGMS FOR VIRTUAL REALITY
 
November 5, 1992
 
 
 
ANNOUNCEMENT:
 
The Colorado Visual Arts Center, 1701 Wazee, Denver, CO, is offering a 
free exhibit by "Techno-Artists" starting Friday, November 6, 1992, 
and running until December 18, 1992.  The "New Paradigms for Virtual 
Reality" exhibit will feature a variety of high-tech artwork including 
virtual reality.  On November 6, the exhibit will open at 5:30 p.m. 
and run until 7:30 p.m.  After the opening, the exhibit can be seen during 
normal viewing hours of Tuesday - Friday, 11:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. 
and Saturday, 12 noon until 4:00 p.m.  The Colorado Visual Arts Center 
will accommodate groups of students for this exhibit.
 
For more information, contact the Colorado Visual Arts Center at 294-5207.

bcnu, ters