HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: alexm@teal.csn.org (Alex Matthews)
Subject: Kaypro 2x for sale
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:51:58 GMT

For sale:

       ** Kaypro 2x ('84) **  

           - CP/M
           - 64k RAM
           - two 190k 5.25" floppy drives

      Includes:
           - Brother HR-5 dot-matrix printer (normal/thermal transfer)
           - Kaypro LQ daisywheel printer w/fonts (Courier 10, Herald
                   Elite 10/12, Caroll OCR12, Standard PS) and tractor and 
                   bin sheetfeeder attachments
           - software:  Wordstar, Checks&Balances, Basic, C, Fortran, 
                   Uniform (reads DOS floppies), dBaseII
           - complete manuals

This system is great for basic, high-quality word processing.  The
daisywheel printer is really a Juki clone of a Diablo (1600, I think).

I'm in Boulder, CO.  Send me email if you're interested, and make me an 
offer.
-- 
- Alex Matthews  (new address: alexm.csn.org)

  "A typical Grand Prix race.  High noon.  Tension mounts.  Throttles clench."
                        Patricia Zonker, _Murdercycles_
Newsgroups: co.general
From: altinbay@netcom.com (John Altinbay)
Subject: Re: Colorado Ski Report
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 04:10:43 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.171300.25486@ncar.ucar.edu> marcia@rap.ucar.edu (Marcia Politovich) writes:
>>
>   Break!
>   Hey, read your own quote re paranoia..... 
>   My interpretation of the original post about gays 
>    staring at this guy in the men's room was that it
>    was sarcasm - it's a joke, son, it's a joke! (even 
>    if not terribly original,  good, or funny....) 
>   So let's chill out on this one. 
>>

Sorry.  Around here, too many make hurtful statements, and then try
to pull the it-was-only-a-joke stuff.  I don't believe no more.

Besides, calling something a joke doesn't make it any less disgusting.



-- 
John Altinbay   -   altinbay@netcom.com
===============================================================
There's a spirit that guides me, a light that shines for me
My life is worth the living, I don't need to see the end.
Newsgroups: co.general,rec.skiing,rec.travel,nyx.misc,du.general,bit.listserv.travel-l
From: smith@lurch.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Colorado Ski Report
Organization: nasa-jsc
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 23:07:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.164151.29412@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>, ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan4.160022.1556@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> jmelnick@nyx.cs.du.edu (Jay Melnick) writes:
|> >                                TravelBank Systems
|> >                               Colorado TravelBank
|> >                               COLORADO SKI REPORT
|> >                   "Colorado, Where else would you want to ski?"
|> 
|> Someplace that didn't have a constitutional amendment stripping gays,
|> lesbians, and bisexuals of their civil rights?
|> 


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

BTW, if gay men can use the same restroom as me, then why can't I use
the women's restroom.  Separate but equal was ruled unconstitutional by
the Supreme Court anyway, right?  



|> Oh, was that a rhetorical question?
|> 
|> Evelyn C. Leeper  |  +1 908 957 2070  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  ecl@mtgzy.att.com
|> --
|> "To make the point [that homosexuals hamper military effectiveness] I'd
|> say that you would have to sift through your military history till you
|> find an instance in which failure has been attributed to the presence
|> of homosexuals on the losing side.  I'm not aware of any such case in
|> the past 2500 years, but I'd be interested to hear what you find."
|> -Nathan Engle


-- 

==============================================================================
DPS
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: co.general
From: meridiem@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Jill Engel)
Subject: Re: Ammendment 2 on disk?
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1993 20:01:57 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1iaehmINN9h0@hp-col.col.hp.com> kenw@col.hp.com (Ken Wyatt) writes:
>A friend of mine has requested the actual wording of Ammendment 2.
>
>Does anyone have this on disk, or can otherwise e-mail it to me?

I have this same request.  I had meant to take a copy with me on my Christmas
vacation in Texas.  Sure enough, I ended up in arguements/discussions with
many people and truly wished I had to exact wording to make my point.  People
outside of Colorado are even more confused than Coloradoans since they only
get what the news(papers) say and have no concept what the Amendment really
says.  Therefore, I have a few people in mind I'd like to send an exact copy
to.  

Thank you!

								Jill


*  Jill Engel (Anne Meridiem)  * "If the world were a logical place, *
* meridiem@lamar.colostate.edu *  men would ride side-saddle."       *
*                              *                    --Rita Mae Brown * 
Newsgroups: co.general,rec.skiing,rec.travel
From: ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Subject: Re: Colorado amendment 2 information / boycott
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 21:56:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.032748.21387@mercury.cair.du.edu> elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu (Eric LeSatz) writes:
> I think most homosexuals are just a bunch of paranoid _____. Just like
> they will label me as "homophobic" because of my last sentence.  Well,
> if homosexuals are in such bad shape, being fired all the time, etc.
> how come they are above average in income? This brings up the point
> that there should be laws that reduce the number of homosexuals in
> high level positions so that heterosexual income will be more equal to
> homosexual income.

Why does this sound to me just like arguments that used to be made--and
are still made--about Jews?  "Jews are paranoid.  If they're in such
bad shape, why do they control the banks and industry?  We need laws to
reduce the number of Jews in high level positions so that Christian
income can be more equal to Jewish income."  Welcome to the Nuremberg
Laws.

I will give Mr. LeSatz the benefit of the doubt and assume that he
didn't realize exactly what his paragraph quoted above sounds like.
But I would suggest to him that he think about what he *appears* to be
saying, and how many people are likely to interpret his remarks.

Evelyn C. Leeper  |  +1 908 957 2070  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  ecl@mtgzy.att.com
--
"To make the point [that homosexuals hamper military effectiveness] I'd
say that you would have to sift through your military history till you
find an instance in which failure has been attributed to the presence
of homosexuals on the losing side.  I'm not aware of any such case in
the past 2500 years, but I'd be interested to hear what you find."
-Nathan Engle
Newsgroups: co.general,rec.skiing,rec.travel
From: r23@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (raymond.r.romanczyk..jr)
Subject: Re: Colorado amendment 2 information / boycott
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:33:19 GMT
Followup-To: rec.travel

In article <1993Jan11.022319.2968@mercury.cair.du.edu>, elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu (Eric LeSatz) writes:
> In article <1993Jan10.215654.25765@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
> >
> >Why does this sound to me just like arguments that used to be made--and
> >are still made--about Jews?  "Jews are paranoid.  If they're in such
> >bad shape, why do they control the banks and industry?  We need laws to
> >reduce the number of Jews in high level positions so that Christian
> >income can be more equal to Jewish income."  Welcome to the Nuremberg
> >Laws.
> 
> Why not? Isn't that the entire point of special discrimination laws?
> If Blacks had been making big money in the 60's it is doubtful that
> they would have asked for special protection. I don't believe in
> special protection for anyone unless they can clearly show there is
> discrimination against them. So far homosexuals have not only failed
> to show this, but the factual evidence proves that there is little
> discrimination. 
> 
> Eric

OK, I tried, but I just can't avoid adding my two cents.

PLEASE WAKE UP! 

   1. Descrimination isn't just about how much money you make.
      (I guess if blacks, "were making big money," they wouldn't have minded
      not having the right to vote, or sitting in the back of the bus, or...)

   2. While you may believe that A2 is there only to stop gays/lesbians from 
      seeking SPECIAL treatment, what it actually does is prevent them from
      seeking EQUAL treatment.

Please read A2 closely.  And while you're at it, do a little research on
affirmative action.  Approach it with an open mind, and you might be surprised 
at what you learn.
Newsgroups: co.general,rec.skiing,rec.travel,nyx.misc,du.general,bit.listserv.travel-l
From: jelmore@nyx.cs.du.edu (John Elmore)
Subject: Re: Colorado Ski Report
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.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 02:12:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.230717.3233@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> smith@lurch.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.164151.29412@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>, ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
>|> In article <1993Jan4.160022.1556@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> jmelnick@nyx.cs.du.edu (Jay Melnick) writes:
>|> >                                TravelBank Systems
>|> >                               Colorado TravelBank
>|> >                               COLORADO SKI REPORT
>|> >                   "Colorado, Where else would you want to ski?"
>|> 
>|> Someplace that didn't have a constitutional amendment stripping gays,
>|> lesbians, and bisexuals of their civil rights?
>|> 
>
>
>I'm happy to say that I AM skiing in Colorado in March, BECAUSE the 
>amendment was passed.  I won't have to worry about gay men staring at
>me while I am using the restroom (hopefully all gay men will boycott
>Colorado).

You know, most of the men I hear who use that old hack ("I don't want gay
me staring at me") tend to be the type of person I know _I_ wouldn't be
attracted to if I were gay. I'll bet you don't mind having women "stare at
you", do you? Even women whom you don't find attractive? What's the
difference? If you're not interested, you're not interested.

>BTW, if gay men can use the same restroom as me, then why can't I use
>the women's restroom.  Separate but equal was ruled unconstitutional by
>the Supreme Court anyway, right?

Sure, go ahead and build unisex bathrooms. No one will want to use them.
American society is so hung up sexually that the thought of accidentally
walking in on a member of the opposite sex while going to the bathroom
would be enough to scare even the most radically rabid feminist.

I mean, by the same token, there should be no problem with a man walking
around in women's clothing.

Jay (=
Newsgroups: co.general,rec.skiing,rec.travel
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: A2 *is* special treatment (was Re: Colorado Ski Report)
Organization: NCAR, Boulder CO
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 23:06:32 GMT

>|>  "Colorado, Where else would you want to ski?"
>|
>| Someplace that didn't have a constitutional amendment stripping gays,
>| lesbians, and bisexuals of their civil rights?
>
> Or how about a place where its not acceptable to grant special
> treatment and priviledges to certain groups of individuals.

Why is A2 so hard for some to comprehend?
The CFV double-speak is easily revealed simply by reading A2.

One more time, slowly:

Before A2: 
  (on paper) gays/lesbians had no special treatment (favorable or unfavorable), 
  in fact, some cities explicitly forbid special treatment 
  (in limited circumstances) based on *any* sexual orientation.

After A2: 
  special treatment, for people with gay/bi/lesbian orientation *only*, 
  is explicitly written into law.

-Brian

------------------------------------------------------------------------
A2:
"Neither the State of Colorado ... nor any of its municipalities ...
 shall ...  enforce any ... ordinance ... 
 whereby homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation ... 
 shall ... be the basis of ... any ... claim of discrimination"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: co.general
From: altinbay@netcom.com (John Altinbay)
Subject: Re: Colorado Ski Report
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 04:27:53 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.194544.10866@dazixco.ingr.com> dlb@dazixco.ingr.com writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.204221.12110@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, thester@nyx.cs.du.edu (Uncle Fester) writes:
>|> 
>|>        I think it's pretty "special" that a heterosexual can't
>|>        be fired for sexual orientation, yet a homosexual can.
>
>That is pure B***S**T.  You obviously are not in a position to do any
>hiring/firing.  If you were, you would know that the ONLY grounds for
>firing a person are work performance or general layoff.  If you fire
>somebody for ANY REASON other than work performance, you open yourself
>personally and your employer to a lawsuit.  If you do fire for performance,
>you'd better have damn good documentation of said performance for a 
>period of no less than 6 months.
>
>Gays currently have as many rights as anyone else, even without special
>constitutional protection.  If somebody is fired for having long hair,
>or long fingernails, or homosexuality, that person has good grounds for
>a lawsuit.  Don't believe me, ask your attorney.
>

Well, thanks to amendment 2, this is no longer the case for homosexuals.
Read it carefully.

>The issue is whether to grant special constitutional protection to a group
>of people who have no externally detectable differences from the general
>population.  It's quite different from granting protections to minorities
>whose minority status is obvious from the color of their skin.
>
>How can a homosexual claim discrimination unless that individual makes
>a public issue about his/her sexuality?  Doing so is inappropriate in
>the workplace whether you're homosexual or heterosexual.
>

The boss could, using stuff like openly speaking against amendment 2,
argue that the employee is homosexual.  Don't scoff - people will do
stuff like this, and surprisingly weird arguments have succeeded in court. 
>And now back to the more mundane - my apologies to rec.skiing netters.

If you're worried about bothering them, don't post there.


-- 
John Altinbay   -   altinbay@netcom.com
===============================================================
There's a spirit that guides me, a light that shines for me
My life is worth the living, I don't need to see the end.
From: mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Stripped of Civil Rights?
Date: 8 Jan 1993 17:22:55 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company
Reply-To: marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: hptrane.fc.hp.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

: In article <1993Jan8.002158.9439@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:
: Let's keep this in perspective, folks.  Amendment 2 does not strip away
: the conventional Civil Rights such as voting and due process.

I suggest you look up the term "Civil Rights".  Things like a fair chance at
employment and housing are included in this umbrella.  Those are the things
that civil rights laws protect.  And those are the things specifically
forbidded by amendment 2.  Thus, the amendment does specifically strip away any
civil rights, but it does strip away any protections for those rights, giving
the general populace the freedom to stomp all over those rights.

: It does
: remove the "right" to be considered a minority.  Thus, this is sort of
: "second order" discrimination.

If this was all the amendment was about, I still would have considered it
unconsitutionally discriminatory, but I wouldn't have cared so much, becuase it
wouldn't have had any real effect - gays were unlikely to achive the mythical
"minority status" - in the intended sense of "group eligible for affirmative
action" - anyhow.  Of course, "minority status" doesn't really mean anything;
but the term "quota preferences" probably does.

--
Marc Sabatella
marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
--
Amendment 2 Is Legalized Discrimination - Shame On You, Colorado
--
"Neither the State of Colorado ... nor any of its municipalities ... shall ...
 enforce any ... ordinance ... whereby homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual
 orientation ... shall ... be the basis of ... any ... claim of discrimination"
--
All opinions expressed herein are my personal ones
and do not necessarily reflect those of HP or anyone else.
Newsgroups: co.general,rec.skiing,rec.travel
From: zstewart@nyx.cs.du.edu (Zhahai Stewart)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2 Yet Again (was Re: Colorado Ski Report)
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.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 00:48:31 GMT

>>that argument.
>
>See, this is the rub. Its the final three or four words at the end of 2
>that have me objecting to it. Which is really too bad, IMHO. Minus
>the part about not being able to seek recourse for discrimination, I thought
>it was okay. It just says that Colorado refuses to grant anybody special or
>privileged status. With it however, is another story....

I understand your point, but as a friendly clarification, Ballot Issue #2
didn't say that CO refuses to grant "anybody" special or privileged status.
It singled out "homosexuals, lesbians, and bisexuals" only, for restrictions.
As you correctly note, it prohibits homosexuals from being protected by even
non-class-oriented non-discrimination policies, but it did not limit
heterosexuals from having non-discrimination protection, or indeed even special
rights and privileges.  Which they do, in regard to marriage.

#2 could have said "no special privileges to anybody based on sexual 
orientation".  Instead it said "no special privileges nor even-handed
non-discrimination for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals".  This was not an
oversight; the sponsors were heavily anti-gay, not pro-equal treatment,
despite their shallow pretenses.  This is NOT true of most of the folks who
voted for it; many genuinely thought it was an equal rights amendment which
only trimmed off "special rights".  That was a deception.

Newsgroups: co.general
From: johnc@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU (John Cooley)
Subject: Cheap ride to Winter Park
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:24:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

First, I must apologize for the wide distribution.  I have been unable to
determine that our narrower distributions actually work correctly.

I will be going to Winter Park, Colorado, from the Fort Collins area every
weekend from now through the weekend of March 13.  I leave very early
Saturday morning and return Sunday evening.  I drive an old 4WD Suburban,
and I usually have room for two or three riders.  The vehicle is quite
roomy.  Skis ride inside, flat on the floor behind the back seat.

I can pick up people at several spots in north Fort Collins, along I-25,
and at the Morrison exit on I-70.  I will attempt to make the ride sharing
as convenient as possible for all concerned.  You must arrange your own
lodging.  I can take you to it on Saturday evening and pick you up Sunday
morning, or you can use the free bus system in Winter Park.  I have to be
at the ski area early Sunday morning to check in with the NSCD, where I
volunteer.

For all of this, I ask $10 to help cover gasoline for the Suburban.  To make
arrangements, contact:
               John Cooley
               (303) 491-6017
               (303) 224-2252
               johnc@yuma.acns.colostate.edu

It's cheaper and more convenient than a bus.

Ski report from January 9-10:
  Winter Park/Mary Jane had nearly two feet of snow during the previous
week, including 7-8" Friday night.  Coverage before the new snow was pretty
thin, though.  Sunday morning's report at the area claimed 51" at mid-mountain
and 59" at the top.
  I got out the old noodle boards and skiied powder and trees most of the
day on Saturday.  Depth in the trees ranged from mid-calf to nearly waist
deep.  By 3:30, my legs were showing signs of catastrophic failure, so I
quit for the day.  Sunday, I worked, so did not explore the cut runs
extensively.
  Coverage is generally very good, although the new snow has been scraped off
any number of rocks on the steeper runs.  Bumps are round and soft.  Groomed
runs are in excellent condition.  Parsenn is reasonably well covered, although
the powder was skied out by early Saturday, except in narrow slots in the
trees.
        John Cooley

Newsgroups: co.general,rec.travel
From: zstewart@nyx.cs.du.edu (Zhahai Stewart)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2 Yet Again
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.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 01:07:47 GMT

>Actually, until the courts rule on the meaning of Amendment 2, you can't say
>what it means.  The supporters (including the state, who are forced to defend
>it in court) say in their briefs that the amendment intends to restrict the
>formation of laws to allow minority status or special rights to homosexuals.
>Regardless of the FUD built by opponents of the amendment, that is the intent,
>and that is the intent that the court is being asked to rule on.

"Minority status and special rights" aren't being contested.  Read the briefs.
The cities and citizens filing against #2 are contesting the aspect that makes
evenly applied non-discrimination laws such as Aspen, Boulder, and Denver have,
inapplicable to homosexuals.  If the amendment supporters believed that the
amendment didn't over-ride these non-discrimination laws, they could file
in support of such a ruling, as requested by the plantiffs.  (That is, if they
in essence told the courts that the words "claim of discrimination" at the end
were meaningless, then all parties could agree and the ordinances would stand).

The court battle is being fought over prohibition of non-discrimination; not
over any special rights.
   ~z~


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