HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lpj@col.hp.com (Laura Johnson)
Subject: Re: What happened to all the referenda... RESULTS
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:06:01 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

huntting@advtech.uswest.com (Brad Huntting) writes:
> mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella) writes:
> > 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
> 
> lpj@col.hp.com resonds:
> >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.
> 
> Actually it was just the opposite.  The _ballot_ did not mention
> anything about "discrimination" at all, it only mentioned "special
> status".  The amendment itself was far more insidious.
> 
> This is no doubt one of the reasons it passed.
> 
Now wait a minute, that's just not true. The ballot did mention discrimina-
tion. (I've tossed my copy, but the ballot summary *and* the actual
amendment have been posted in this group.) Incidentally (and thanks to
those that sent me the text), the amendment also clearly states the
intent of legalizing discrimination. As far as I can tell, the ballot
summary was a clear paraphrase of the amendment itself and should not
have led to any confusion about "what people were voting for". 
-- 
Laura Johnson
lpj@hpcsos.col.hp.com
Opinions expressed are my own, but may be licensed for a nominal fee.
Newsgroups: co.general
From: freedman@cs.colostate.edu (keith freedman)
Subject: Re: Support the boycott (was Re: Don't boyc
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 04:45:46 GMT
Reply-To: freedman@cs.colostate.edu
Organization: Colorado State University -=- Computer Science Department

In article 20359@tc.cornell.edu, shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
>In article <Nov19.020457.19357@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> wallsj@CS.ColoState.EDU (jeffrey joel walls) writes:
>> I know first hand (FIRST HAND) that blacks are *still* discriminated
>> against. 
>
>Nobody is saying that they aren't.  It's no longer legal,
>however, and doesn't have the patina of respectability that
>gaybashing does.  While an end to bigotry is obviously
>desirable (and necessary), when African-Americans lose
>their jobs or are denied housing because of their race,
>they have legal recourse.  And *that*, friend, is a 
>direct result of the civil rights movement.

Realize, Melinda, that "minority" groups including African-Americans and
American-Indians have been fighting for "their" rights (I quote their, because
I feel that PEOPLE deserve rights, not any group of people in particular) for MANY
years while the homosexual situation is fairly recent and has been clouded by this
AIDS mis-information.  If you wish for us to look at the civil-rights history, one
could argue that homosexuals shouldn't expect anything for 30 or so years.

This issue especially could take quite some time as it is not just the fear of people
who are different, but it has to do with people's insecurity about themselves and
their sexuality.  People who fear gays are obviously so insecure about their own
heterosexuality that they feel they might become gay.  This is probably why they
don't view it as an "orientation".  I don't know what others think, I can only
speculate.  I can tell you that it is disturbing (for me, anyways) when someone
of the same sex tries to "pick me up" in the grocery store (or anywhere).  This sort
of thing also makes people upset, angry, and prejudice.

Am I making sense here?!

---
Keith Freedman
Colorado State University
Department of Computer Science
Systems Administration

Newsgroups: co.general
From: freedman@cs.ColoState.EDU (keith freedman)
Subject: Re: Don't boycott all of Colorado
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 06:48:06 GMT
Reply-To: freedman@cs.ColoState.EDU
Organization: Colorado State University -=- Computer Science Dept.

In article 26584@col.hp.com, kary@col.hp.com (Dan Kary) writes:
>freedman@cs.ColoState.EDU (keith freedman) writes:
>> I have difficulty believing that 54% of Colorado Voters are from out of state?!
>
>When I moved to Colorado from North Dakota in 1986 one of the many pieces of
>information I recieved about Colorado mentioned that this state is unique in
>that > 50% of the population are people who moved here as opposed to people
>who were born here.
>
>Getting back to your original point, I would not be one tiny bit surprised to
>learn that 54% of Colorado voters were born in other states.  I would be
>shocked beyond words if it could be shown that they *all* voted for amendment
>2.
>
>Dan (native American) Kary
>
This is very fascinating and it would be surprising if it were shown that all
these non-Coloradoans voted for the ammendment--(well, most-- I know a couple
who didn't).

---
Keith (Native Coloradoan) Freedman		Boycott Boycotts
Colorado State University
Department of Computer Science
Systems Administration

Newsgroups: co.general
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: interesting thought (ammendment 2)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 08:06:45 GMT

In article <Nov19.000603.41776@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> freedman@cs.colostate.edu writes:
>I forgot the exact wording, but does the ammendment also allow a person to be
>discriminated against because they are a heterosexual?

That depends on where you live: In Denver, Boulder, and Aspen there are
laws against discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. Amendment
2 repeals and prohibits such laws in the case of homosexual or bisexual
leanings _only_. The laws in these cities still protect heterosexuals, 
and Amendment 2 has no effect in this regard. However, Amendment 2 also
does not offer any protections to heterosexuals: If you live in, say,
Colorado Springs you may be discriminated against for being heterosexual
(since that city has no law on the subject) and, if you sued over it, 
you would have a very hard time in court...

                                            Frank Crary
                                            CU Boulder

Newsgroups: co.general
From: freedman@cs.ColoState.EDU (keith freedman)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2: The First Fatalit
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:39:45 GMT
Reply-To: freedman@cs.ColoState.EDU
Organization: Colorado State University -=- Computer Science Dept.

In article 1256@tc.cornell.edu, shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
>In article <Nov15.215505.16307@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> wallsj@CS.ColoState.EDU (jeffrey joel walls) writes:
>>This really pisses me off!  
>
>Well, the Colorado amendment really pisses me off.
>
>As you say, boycotts work.  And I strongly encourage you to
>consider whether a boycott will be more threatening to the
>livelihood of gay, lesbian, and bisexual Coloradans than
>the amendment is.  I also urge you to consider whether it
>is, in fact, possible to spend a dime in Colorado without
>indirectly supporting the proponents of the amendment,
>given the tax-exempt status of churches and given what the
>recipients of your dime will do with it after they receive
>it (hint:  banks, inventory, etc.).  It's not as simple as
>you seem to want it to be.
>--
>           Hate is not a family value.  Boycott Colorado
>
>       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu

Well lets see,  Since most of the banks central offices are out of the state, that
money leaves Colorado anyways!!  As far as Colorado Products go. Only few of them
will benefit the CFW (Colorado for Family Values [this is for Melinda's benefit
as she probably doesn't know who initiated the proposal]).  Most of the larger
businesses are CHOOSING to NOT use their new right to fire gay's and lesbians (probably
since this "right" is not right).  These businesses include the State institutions
(CSU, The Capital Building, State run agencies, etc...), the Ski areas (which most
people are planning to boycott), etc.  In fact, I havn't heard of ANY person who
has been fired under this new ammendment!!  So, although it passed, NO one belives
in it enough to actually test the constitutionality of it, even the CFV people!.

Just an interjection,
---
Keith Freedman
Colorado State University
Department of Computer Science
Systems Administration

Newsgroups: co.general
From: mgooley@advtech.uswest.com (Mark. Gooley)
Subject: Re: Local beers (was: Info on local tavern.
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:32:42 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.030415.28843@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.162621.7034@advtech.uswest.com> mgooley@advtech.uswest.com (Mark. Gooley) writes:
>>Opinions?  Does anyone else think that the bottled Boulder Beer products
>>are bad, and are the ones they have on tap really better?
>
>I'm not sure I'd call their bottled beers "bad." I define "bad" in terms
>of the popular brands: Miller, Budweiser, etc... Boulder's bottled
>beers are _much_ better than that. The're also no where close to, say,
>Anchor's Liberty Ale. I think "unexceptional" is a better lable than
>"bad"...

Point granted...I mean that they're far better than (say) Coors Extra Gold,
but nowhere near as good as the better beers out of Fort Collins, or the
Anchor Brewing products, or any of dozens of other small-brewery beers,
so I suppose that we're in agreement here.

Mark.
mgooley@advtech.uswest.com
Newsgroups: co.general
From: freedman@cs.ColoState.EDU (keith freedman)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2: The First Fatalit
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:49:18 GMT
Reply-To: freedman@cs.ColoState.EDU
Organization: Colorado State University -=- Computer Science Dept.

In article 43840@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU, wallsj@CS.ColoState.EDU (jeffrey joel walls) writes:
>In article <1992Nov15.223215.1256@tc.cornell.edu> shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
>>
>>Well, the Colorado amendment really pisses me off.
>>
>>As you say, boycotts work.  And I strongly encourage you to
>>consider whether a boycott will be more threatening to the
>>livelihood of gay, lesbian, and bisexual Coloradans than
>>the amendment is.  
>
> When considering whether a boycott will be effective or not, you
> should first decide what you want to occur in response to the
> boycott.  ...  There are also plenty 
> of people that could care less about the amendment, and they are going 
> to spend their money here.  In other words, what I'm saying is that 
> a boycott will not be effective in Colorado, IMO.
>
Melinda (etc.),
	One also has to consider what people who approve of the ammendment's reaction
to a boycott will be.  There are MANY people who will say, "Hey, lets visit Colorado
now since there will be none of them [derogatory comment about people with sexual
differences] around to bug us."
	May I suggest that instead of boycotting Colorado, you make a donation to the
School system in Colorado and have it directed to teaching people that it's OK if
someone else is different!!
---
Keith Freedman
Colorado State University
Department of Computer Science
Systems Administration

Xref: sparky co.general:1891 co.politics:2235
From: sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: co.general,co.politics
Subject: Re: Don't boycott all of Colorado
Date: 19 Nov 92 15:57:36 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1992Nov18.230811.7510@col.hp.com> dag@col.hp.com (David Geiser) writes:
>> McCartney personally. Exactly the opposite effect from what you want.
>> There is certainly no evidence that the University itself, or even the
>> athletic department, contributed to the support of #2, and the consequences
>> of expecting them to control what one of their employees does with his own 
>> money and on his own time are, if anything, scarier than the implications of 
>> #2.
>
>$DRIFT_ON
>The university can most certainly expect McCartney, who is a public figure and
>a representative of the university, to keep his public exposure pristine.  Not
>being publicly political is frequently part of that expectation and many times
>is explicitly expressed contractually.  Anybody out there know how to look it
>up in this particular case?
>$DRIFT_OFF

The coach appeared at the *initial* news conference announcing the formation
of CFV, prominently displaying a CU emblem. He was officially reprimanded
for this, since it's contrary to University policy. His subsequent 
appearances have been as a "private citizen." As Greg Woods pointed out,
he's got a lifetime contract and can't be fired. He's also the highest-paid
employee of the State of Colorado. The coach's Neanderthal political views
aside, I think that's a pretty sad commentary on our priorities in this state.

Steve
Newsgroups: co.general
From: freedman@cs.colostate.edu (keith freedman)
Subject: Re: interesting thought (ammendment 2)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:56:27 GMT
Reply-To: freedman@cs.colostate.edu
Organization: Colorado State University -=- Computer Science Department

In article 28435@col.hp.com, kary@col.hp.com (Dan Kary) writes:
>Fascinating.  I've read amendment 2 several times and each time I read it
>I see that it places limits on GOVERNMENT.  I don't see how anyone could   
>possibly interpret it as something that gives private citizens or companies
>permission to discriminate against anyone for any reason.
>
If a private citizen decides to discriminate, it prevents THEM from being able to
have any LEGAL recourse in the matter.  Since GOVERNMENT is no longer able to
secure rights for homosexuals who are being discriminated against.

You are right, however, that there the law doesn't give people permission to
discriminate (No one I've encountered who discriminates ever cared if they had
permission or not).  Again, the law allows the expression of the discrimination
by private citizens and companies which was discouraged before.

---
Keith Freedman
Colorado State University
Department of Computer Science
Systems Administration

Newsgroups: co.general
From: freedman@cs.colostate.edu (keith freedman)
Subject: interesting thought (ammendment 2)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 00:06:03 GMT
Reply-To: freedman@cs.colostate.edu
Organization: Colorado State University -=- Computer Science Department

I forgot the exact wording, but does the ammendment also allow a person to be
discriminated against because they are a heterosexual?
If so, what if a heterosexual employer fired another heterosexual employee on such
a basis?

Also, if someone is fired for being gay when they are not gay, exactly what kind of
proof would the courts need to determine wrongful discrimination?

---
Keith Freedman
Colorado State University
Department of Computer Science
Systems Administration

Newsgroups: co.general,co.politics
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Constitution
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 06:19:51 GMT

In article <Bxty6L.FLJ@fc.sde.hp.com> marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com writes:
>: However, the Supreme Court in Katzenbach v. Morgan ruled that inequal
>: levels of protection against discrimination don't necessarily violate
>: the Fourteenth Amendment.
>For those of us not legal scholars, could you perhaps elaborate?

The law in question was a federal exemption from literacy tests (in
order to vote) for anyone with a sixth-grade or better education in
a Puerto Rican, spanish-speeking school. One of the objections
was that this law denied equal protection to educated, speakers
of Spanish, simply because they were not educated in Puerto Rico.
The Court held that there a law did not have to deal with all
forms of discrimination at once: It was acceptable to offer one
group protection without offering another group the same protection.

                                                    Frank Crary
                                                    CU Boulder

Newsgroups: co.general
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: interesting thought (ammendment 2)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 18:41:59 GMT

In article <By1H18.C1z@fc.sde.hp.com> marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com writes:
>I'm inclined to agree.  I also don't like the idea that discrimination policy
>should vary town by town.  it seems to me something that inherent belongs at
>the state level.
 
Why? I think these laws (and any laws for that matter) belong on whatever
level of government has fairly uniform public support (e.g. if there is
widespread national support, then federal laws would be appropriate; if
there is no national consensus but there is agreement within the state,
a state law is appropriate; etc...) The local level seems to be the
only place with a general, popular consensus on the subject of laws against
sexual-preference discrimination; I'd say local government is, therefore, 
the _only_ appropriate place for such laws.

>Actually, I think the whole idea of dividing the country by
>states has outlived its usefulness; there should be national and local and
>that's it, but thatt's a bit much for most people to swallow.

If you look closely, there are _major_ differences between the popular
will in one state and national public opinion. The federal Constitution
is set up, so as _not_ to impose the national majority's opinion on
locals who disagree (excepting a small number of topics that everyone
agreed could only be handled at a national level; interstate commerce, 
national defense, foreign relations, etc...) I personally _like_ the
idea of such diversity: I recently moved here from California, and I'm
very happy about the differences in state laws. I'd hate to see the nation
limited to one, uniform laws written by the majority (at the expense of
minorities) and based on the national, lowest common denominator.

                                                    Frank Crary
                                                    CU Boulder
 
Newsgroups: co.general
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Forum on S 893 making software piracy a felony
Summary: Forum to discuss S 893 making software piracy a felony
Keywords: software piracy felony
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 07:21:16 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.
From: sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: interesting thought (amendment 2)
Date: 22 Nov 92 16:59:19 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1992Nov21.231415@eklektix.com> rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn) writes:
>_ _ _ _ _
>
>As I wrote the above, I started wondering about Amendment 2 _vs_ Article I
>of the US Constitution.  I don't think I've heard this mentioned in the Am
>2 discussion (if I've missed it, sorry; just quietly toast me in email:-):
>Why does Am 2 not violate the right "to petition the government for a
>redress of grievances"?  Or am I badly misunderstanding Article I?
>_ _ _ _ _

You're thinking of the First Amendment, not Article I. This *is* mentioned in
the suit that was filed to overturn 2.

Steve
Newsgroups: co.general
From: trook@stortek.com (Paula Trook)
Subject: Help with LOTUS 123 3.1+
Keywords: LOTUS123 
Organization: Storage Technology Corp.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 20:45:24 GMT

Volunteer treasurers need help with LOTUS.

We have been using LOTUS 1-2-3 version 3.1+ on a DTK 386 running 
MS-DOS 5.0.  We suspect that the application is not installed 
optimally with respect to extended memory (EMM386 as provided 
by DOS 5.0 is the only memory manager in our system).  We are 
trying to utilize the 3-D features of 1-2-3 version 3.1+, but 
cannot get the package to run without lengthy accesses to disk 
during recalcs.  We would be delighted to hear from anyone 
experienced in 3-D applications with this version of 1-2-3.  
Russ and Paula: 673-5831
       or


E-mail to this address  trook@yeti.stortek.com

Thanks in advance

Ptrook

Newsgroups: co.general
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: interesting thought (amendment 2)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 02:35:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.231415@eklektix.com> rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn) writes:
>As I wrote the above, I started wondering about Amendment 2 _vs_ Article I
>of the US Constitution.  I don't think I've heard this mentioned in the Am
>2 discussion (if I've missed it, sorry; just quietly toast me in email:-):
>Why does Am 2 not violate the right "to petition the government for a
>redress of grievances"?  Or am I badly misunderstanding Article I?

I think you mean the First Amendment to the Constitution. However, 
the clause you refer to isn't voilated by Amendment 2: Any one can
still assemble, speak out against and generally complain to the
government (including complaints in the form of petitions) about gay
rights and/or the lack of anti-discrimination laws in Colorado. The
important point is that the First Amendment doesn't require the
government to pay any attention to such complaints (The version of
it that Madison first proposed did require this, but it was watered
down by the House of Representatives...) 

                                            Frank Crary
                                            CU Boulder

Newsgroups: co.general
From: freedman@cs.colostate.edu (keith freedman)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2: The First Fatalit
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:48:40 GMT
Reply-To: freedman@cs.colostate.edu
Organization: Colorado State University -=- Computer Science Department

In article 20608@csrd.uiuc.edu, skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
>
>It would indeed.  Of course, there are always those nasty questions
>about how taxing churches would affect the separation of church and
>state...

hmm.. Separation of church and state??  What a neat idea.  Has someone suggested
that the government give this one a try???!

---
Keith Freedman
Colorado State University
Department of Computer Science
Systems Administration
From: tjreynol@zephyr.cair.du.edu (five left and cut!)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Don't boycott all of Colorado
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:24:48 GMT
Organization: University of Denver

In article <Nov16.221119.53899@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> freedman@cs.ColoState.EDU writes:

>I have difficulty believing that 54% of Colorado Voters are from out of state?!
>Somehow, more than half the population voted in favor of the ammendment.  Where are
>these people??  Last I checked, Colorado Springs has much less than half of the
>states population!!

Last time I checked, the voters made up MUCH LESS than the states population.

>---
>Keith Freedman

Tim
Newsgroups: co.general