HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dweinste@nyx.cs.du.edu (David Hills Weinstein)
Newsgroups: co.politics
Subject: Re: Amendment 2:  What is my motive?
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:11:04 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.

In article <1992Sep29.223311.7@sycraft.com> ken@sycraft.com (Ken Richardson) writes:
#I have to say, it seems reasonable to me to keep the freedom to choose to
#whom I will rent a room in my own house.  Consider for a moment - if you
#were raising children, but you needed to rent out a room to make ends meet,
#wouldn't you want the freedom not to rent to those whose values were
#contrary to the values you were teaching your children.  Would you want to
#rent to a neo-nazi?  A skinhead?  A pedophile?  A (pick one you're not)
#communist/socialist/capitalist/republican/democrat?  Maybe you wouldn't
#care, but I would.

From what are you protecting them? The attack of the killer straw men?
The Denver ordinance exempts owner-resident properties, religious 
organizations, and schools from all of its provisions. If you live in 
the building, you can reject anyone for any reason. As far as I know, there
are no ordinances in the state which apply to an owner-resident property.

--Dave

--
Dave Weinstein                               Internet: dweinste@isis.cs.du.edu
Disclaimer: You must be kidding.             GEnie: OLORIN
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, "Let there be light."
And there was still nothing. But you could see it.
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2:  What is my motive?
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 05:33:14 GMT

kr> Ken Richardson

kr> My motivation for supporting it is not "to hate others" - it is to protect
    the right of parents to raise their children according to their own value
    systems.  Amendment 2 stirs emotion in us all, but it is presumptious to
    attribute evil motives and feelings to those who disagree with our own
    position.

  If this were a reasonable world, this would be a reasonable view to take on
  Amendment 2. However, unfortunately, a good many of those backing it are of
  the type we've seen here already, namely, homosexuals are abnormal, "vile",
  disgusting, &c aberrations who just barely belong to the human race. 

  As a libertarian, I fully support the right of parents/landlords/employers 
  to discriminate as they see fit, for reasons good and bad. However, I cannot
  condone the attitude and beliefs underlying Coloradans for Family Values,
  and since many homosexuals are definitely in the class of abused persons,
  things like Amendment 2 really have no place. I suspect most voters agree
  with me. We'll see November 3rd.

  PS - For the cynical view, what good does a piece of paper saying that X is
       "protected" really do? The Bill of Rights is also just such a piece of
       paper, and it hasn't really restrained the government when it's felt
       like stomping on our individual rights. I don't put much faith in these
       pieces of paper.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: cgk@mbunix.mitre.org (Chriss Koch)
Subject: Re: Gay Rights and the U.S. Supreme Court test
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 19:01:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.202957.17261@craycos.com>, jrbd@craycos.com (James Davies) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep26.200424.451@linus.mitre.org> cgk@mbunix.mitre.org (Chriss Koch) writes:
> 
> >Well, OK but what about the homosexual who gets kicked out of his/her
> >apartment because their landlord is intolerant of homosexuals?
> 
> In Boulder it's currently illegal to discriminate against gays in
> housing, but it's OK to discriminate against heterosexual couples (because it's
> legal to forbid opposite-sex apartment-mates).  Do you think this is fair?

Absolutely not.  Who made up that law?

Newsgroups: co.politics
From: rosinski@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Jim Rosinski)
Subject: How should I vote?--A Radical's Perspective on Amendment 1
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 05:22:18 GMT


Today's (Monday) Rocky Mountain News has the full text of all amendments
which will appear on the ballot November 3.  This posting is the first in a
series of articles in which I will reproduce the wording of a selected
amendment as it will appear on the ballot.  Warning: editorial comments will
also be included.

Amendment #1:

SHALL THERE BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION TO REQUIRE VOTER
APPROVAL FOR CERTAIN STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT TAX REVENUE INCREASES AND
DEBT; TO RESTRICT PROPERTY, INCOME, AND OTHER TAXES; TO LIMIT THE RATE OF
INCREASE IN STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING; TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL
INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM ELECTIONS; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE MAILING OF
INFORMATION TO REGISTERED VOTERS?

Colorado Springs businessman Douglas Bruce has been the prime mover behind
this proposal, which has appeared in various forms on Colorado ballots for a
number of the past elections.  It has always failed, though reccently not by
very wide margins.

Backers of the amendment are concerned about the unchecked growth of
government which has occurred over the past number of years.  Their hope is
that transferral of authority to increase taxes from the arbitrary whim of
legislators to voters themselves will help reign in this unbounded growth in
government.  

Opponents argue that government will be hamstrung, the sky will fall, and
civilization as we know it will come to an end.

I am somewhat ambivalent about Amendment 1.  On the one hand, its a good
idea to remove as much power as possible from greedy, power lusting
legislators.  On the other hand, a sufficiently large portion of the
electorate has been brainwashed into rubber stamping any and all tax
increases (e.g: the stadium tax, the Boulder library tax, the Boulder school
tax, etc.) that I doubt Amendment 1 would do any good anyway.

In the final analysis, I plan to vote "Yes" on #1 if for no other reason
than how thoroughly repulsed I was by the scare tactics employed by
opponents with their "No One Wins With One" TV spots.


Jim Rosinski
From: jrbd@craycos.com (James Davies)
Newsgroups: co.politics
Subject: Re: Gay Rights and the U.S. Supreme Court test
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:29:57 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1992Sep26.200424.451@linus.mitre.org> cgk@mbunix.mitre.org (Chriss Koch) writes:

>Well, OK but what about the homosexual who gets kicked out of his/her
>apartment because their landlord is intolerant of homosexuals?

In Boulder it's currently illegal to discriminate against gays in
housing, but it's OK to discriminate against heterosexual couples (because it's
legal to forbid opposite-sex apartment-mates).  Do you think this is fair?
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern)
Subject: Re: Gay Rights and the U.S. Supreme Court test
Organization: NCAR/UCAR
Distribution: co
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:48:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.152535.6161@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

[attribution lost, but I think it was him]
> >> Instead of a law regarding discrimination against gays in the workplace,
> >> how about a law requiring that all hiring, firing and promoting decisions
> >> be made solely on the basis of work-related skills and on the job 
> >> preformance?

and then later
> 
> I'm essentially suggesting that anti-discrimination laws should be
> written to protect _all_ people who are treated unfairly, not to 
> protect the rights of a specific group (thereby making violating
> the equal protection of the law.) All principle of rights asside,
> laws protecting a specific group actually make things worse: It
> makes some others feel hurt and resentfull, because someone else is
> getting "special" treatment (possibly) at their expense. Affirmative
> Action hiring and admission policies are a clasis example. This 
> tends to increase, not reduce, hatred (which is, after all the real
> problem.)

But wait a minute, isn't this exactly what existing "gay-rights" 
ordinances do?  The Boulder law says something like "Equal protection
under the law shall not be denied on the basis of sexual orientation."
This implies that both gay and straight people have equal rights
under the law -- neither group has "special" rights.  Similarly,
the long-embattled ERA says nothing about *women* in particular -- just
says that rights shall not be abridged on the basis of sex.  This 
would as equally apply to men as to women.

"Special" rights are a bad idea.  But I don't see anyone in the
gay-rights movement asking for "special" rights (such as those conferred
by Affirmative Action), nor do I see the local anti-discrimination laws 
as extending "special" rights to any one group.

-- 
/\                
  \_][ <--NCAR Ilana Stern dod#009 r.b. cliff swallow ilana@ncar.ucar.edu    
      \______________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: co.politics,cu.general
From: james@teal.csn.org (Jim Phillips)
Subject: Re: Electronic Copy of Ballot
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 00:50:08 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.204012.24209@advtech.uswest.com> guyw@dakota (Guy Wells) writes:
>
>Today's Rocky Mtn News (Monday, October 5) has the requisite paid
>advertisement by the Colorado Secretary of State with the entire wording
>of the titles and the contents of each proposed amendment. Read it.
>
>BTW, it's probably in the Post too. Required by law to publish one month
>before elections, don't cha know.
>
>Guy M. Wells <guyw@uswest.com>  Disclaimer: My opinions are mine, no
>U S WEST Advanced Technologies  one elses, and certainly not USWEST's!

The Daily Camera had 'em too.  I knew that they would and I had contacted
them about a week ago.  At the time they said that they had not rcvd
them yet.  So I saw them in the paper today and I called them back.  See
my thinking is that all the papers are typeset by computer these days
so they _MUST_ have a softcopy around somewhere.  As it turns out the
person I talked to was not sure that it would be "possible" to get me
a copy. In any event, as you pointed out, these were _advertisements_
and did not belong to the Camera and the Camera was not authorized to
give ads to anyone.  

They suggested I contact the county clerk or the secretary of state.
Anybody got an email address for these folks :-)

thanks
james



-- 
 James K. Phillips       Sprocket Scientist     james@pvi.com 
  Precision Visuals, Inc.                       james@teal.csn.org
  6230 Lookout Rd      				
  Boulder, CO 80301    				(303) 530-9000 x308
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: cgk@mbunix.mitre.org (Chriss Koch)
Subject: Re: Gay Rights and the U.S. Supreme Court test
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Distribution: co
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 20:04:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.171314.12065@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
> 
> Instead of a law regarding discrimination against gays in the workplace,
> how about a law requiring that all hiring, firing and promoting decisions
> be made solely on the basis of work-related skills and on the job 
> preformance?

Well, OK but what about the homosexual who gets kicked out of his/her
apartment because their landlord is intolerant of homosexuals?

This particular discrimination issue (Amendment 2) has to do with more than
just protecting jobs in the workplace.

So maybe what we need is generic anti-discrimination legislation.  Gad.

Why can't people just be nice to other people without having a law
requiring them to do so?

Newsgroups: co.politics
From: cgk@mbunix.mitre.org (Chriss Koch)
Subject: Re: Gay Rights and the U.S. Supreme Court test
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Distribution: co
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 20:27:51 GMT

In article <1686CC477.WINSLOW@LSTC2VM.stortek.com>, Clifford_Winslow@stortek.com (Clifford Winslow) writes:
> 
> Homosexuals are not interested in liberty...they want license...

Oh, and one more thing.  In my opinion, if anyone is looking for a license,
it is the proponents of Amendment 2 -- they want a license to terminate
employees that are homosexual (or for that matter, those that they
_suspect_ are homosexual, because as you point out, who can tell for sure),
they want a license to evict homosexuals from their homes, and so on.  In
fact proponents of Amendment 2 want a license to persecute homosexuals in
general.  From what I have seen and heard, proponents of Amendment 2 _HATE_
homosexuals, and if ratified, Amendment 2 would legally allow them to
persist in their hate and discrimination.
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: james@teal.csn.org (Jim Phillips)
Subject: Electronic Copy of Ballot
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Distribution: co
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:27:43 GMT


Does anyone know how to get an electronic (soft copy) version of
the November ballot?  I'm specifically interested in the exact
wording of Ballot Proposal 10: Bear Hunting.

thanks
james

-- 
 James K. Phillips       Sprocket Scientist     james@pvi.com 
  Precision Visuals, Inc.                       james@teal.csn.org
  6230 Lookout Rd      				
  Boulder, CO 80301    				(303) 530-9000 x308
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Gay Rights and the U.S. Supreme Court test
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 00:28:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.194805.11179@ncar.ucar.edu> ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern) writes:
>> I'm essentially suggesting that anti-discrimination laws should be
>> written to protect _all_ people who are treated unfairly, not to 
>> protect the rights of a specific group (thereby making violating
>> the equal protection of the law.) All principle of rights asside,
>> laws protecting a specific group actually make things worse: It
>> makes some others feel hurt and resentfull, because someone else is
>> getting "special" treatment (possibly) at their expense. Affirmative
>> Action hiring and admission policies are a clasis example. This 
>> tends to increase, not reduce, hatred (which is, after all the real
>> problem.)

>But wait a minute, isn't this exactly what existing "gay-rights" 
>ordinances do?  The Boulder law says something like "Equal protection
>under the law shall not be denied on the basis of sexual orientation."
>This implies that both gay and straight people have equal rights
>under the law -- neither group has "special" rights.

It implies they have equal rights, but it gives gays a special 
means of protecting their rights, that is not available to others.
If someone who is gay is discriminated against, he may sue under the
Boulder law. However, if I were discriminated against (say, because my
landlord didn't like "long-haired freaky people"), I could not
sue. So, despite similar violations of the same right, the law offers
superior protection of the law to gays.

>"Special" rights are a bad idea.  But I don't see anyone in the
>gay-rights movement asking for "special" rights (such as those conferred
>by Affirmative Action), nor do I see the local anti-discrimination laws 
>as extending "special" rights to any one group.

Not special rights, but special protections of their rights. I'd just
like to see _everyone's_ rights protected equally.

                                            Frank Crary
                                            CU Boulder

Newsgroups: co.politics
From: guyw@dakota (Guy Wells)
Subject: Re: Electronic Copy of Ballot
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Distribution: co
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:40:12 GMT

>Does anyone know how to get an electronic (soft copy) version of
>the November ballot?  I'm specifically interested in the exact
>wording of Ballot Proposal 10: Bear Hunting.

Today's Rocky Mtn News (Monday, October 5) has the requisite paid
advertisement by the Colorado Secretary of State with the entire wording
of the titles and the contents of each proposed amendment. Read it.

BTW, it's probably in the Post too. Required by law to publish one month
before elections, don't cha know.

-- 
--
Guy M. Wells <guyw@uswest.com>  Disclaimer: My opinions are mine, no
U S WEST Advanced Technologies  one elses, and certainly not USWEST's!
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Gay Rights and the U.S. Supreme Court test
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 16:58:01 GMT

In article <1686CC477.WINSLOW@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> Clifford_Winslow@stortek.com (Clifford Winslow) writes:
>The United States Supreme Court has provided very specific criteria
>to deterine who fits into the classification of a "protected minority".

A "protected minority" is _not_ a legal term, defined by Supreme Court
ruling. (Nor, to my knowledge, has the Court ever defined it in an official
ruling.)

It is part of a loose _philosophical_ approach, usually refered to as
"judicial activism." This concerns the underlying methods a Justice
uses to interpert the Constitution. (E.g. how he, personally, approaches
the problems of constitutional interpertation.) There is absolutely
nothing binding about it, nor about any single Justice's definition of
a "protected minority."

In fact, as I recall, most of the Justices now sitting on the Court believe
in judicial activism: Regan and Bush have appointed supporters of
"judicial restraint" (a alternate and compeating judicial philosophy.)

>Remember:  Liberty = The unimpeded ability to do what we ought.
>                     The power of choice.

"To do what we ought." That's a very interesting concept. If you really
mean to define "liberty" is this way, you must add that it is the
individual _not_ the government that determins what we "ought to do."

>           License = The permission granted to engage in an occupation
>                     or business otherwise unlawful...freedom that
>                     allows or is used with irresponsibility...disregard
>                     for rules of person conduct.

Again, your definition is full of vague phrases: "unlawful", as you
are using it cannot extend to improper laws (violating a law establishing
a national religion, for example, would not be "license" since forced
participation in a religion is immoral); "irresponsibility" and "rules
of person[al] conduct" could also better defined as actions that directly
and needlessly harm others.

Once these phrases are clarified, it would seem that homosexuals are
concerned with their liberty, not (as you suggest) license.

>Homosexuals are not interested in liberty...they want license...and they
>want straight America to franchise their vile, disgusting, unnatural, and
>unhealthy lifestyle (flame me on this, and I will post descriptions of
>the sexual practices of homosexuals--perhaps I will do it anyway [ROT13,
>of course]).

Please don't bother: The real issue is your characterization. Are these
practices "vile, disgusting, unnatural and unhealthy" in any absolute
or universal sense, or only in your own (biased) opinion. I'd, personally,
characterize these same practices as "uninteresting", "uncomfortable"
and "not anything I'd want to do." but not "vile, disgusting [and]
unnatural."

                                                Frank Crary
                                                CU Boulder


Newsgroups: co.politics
From: cgk@mbunix.mitre.org (Chriss Koch)
Subject: Re: Gay Rights and the U.S. Supreme Court test
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Distribution: co
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 19:52:52 GMT

In article <1686CC477.WINSLOW@LSTC2VM.stortek.com>, Clifford_Winslow@stortek.com (Clifford Winslow) writes:
> 
> Homosexuals are not interested in liberty...they want license...and they
> want straight America to franchise their vile, disgusting, unnatural, and
> unhealthy lifestyle (flame me on this, and I will post descriptions of
> the sexual practices of homosexuals--perhaps I will do it anyway [ROT13,
> of course]).

Very simply, you are presenting your _opinions_ as fact.  Who made you
an authority on homosexuality, Mr. Winslow?  I doubt if you are
fooling anyone who is reading this newsgroup with your song and dance.

We're all laughing at you, and we're going to vote NO on Amendment 2.

Not necessarily because we're homosexual, but because we know it is
the _right_ thing to do.
Newsgroups: sura.announce
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 11:22:33 -0400
From: "K.A. Long" <klong@sura.net>
To: suranet@sura.net, techs@sura.net
Subject: Technical Meeting correction


The room rates are $80 for a double and $70 for a single.  My 
apologies for any confusion this may have caused.


Kim Long
Newsgroups: sura.announce
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 07:45:29 -0400
From: klong@sura.net
To: suranet@sura.net, techs@sura.net
Subject: Technical Meeting Registration Information


The registration fee for the 3rd annual technical meeting is $120 for
members and $165 for non-members.  SURAnet has a block of rooms
set aside at the Quality Hotel.  Room rates are $80 for a single and
$70 for a double.  A map and directions are available for ftp from
ftp.sura.net in pub/meetings/technical_meetings.  The hotel is located
approximately 3 blocks from the Silver Spring Metro.  Please use the
form below to register by e-mailing meeting@sura.net.  Thanks!  Hope
to see you all there.


Name: ________________________________________________________

Company:  ____________________________________________________

Address:  ____________________________________________________

          ____________________________________________________

Payment:  ____ P.O.    _____ Check     _____ Member   ____ Non-Member
Newsgroups: sura.techs
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 18:36:00 EDT
From: gambert@renoir.admin.cftnet.com (Allen Gambert)
To: techs@sura.net
Subject: possible problem


One of my users is tring to telnet to halcyon.com.  It seems the link is down 
somewhere.  The administrative contact at nis.ans.net says the link is ok from
where they are but I cant seem to ping halcyon.com,  any idea what the problem
might be.  The response my user got back from them follows.

Thanks
Allen (AG96)

>From becker@ans.net Mon Sep 28 06:20:30 1992
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 9:19:31 EDT
From: Jordan Becker <becker@ans.net>
To: Ralph Sims <ralphs@halcyon.halcyon.com>
Cc: noc@ans.net
Subject: Re: remote network down?
Message-Id: <CMM.0.90.2.717686371.becker@home.ans.net>

> We're unable to reach 163.125.1.2.  Any ideas if their Regional is having
> problems?  Traceroute seems to die at the T3/T1 bridge.

Ralph - It seems to be up now.  I did a traceroute from the Seattle
CNSS to 163.125.1.2

traceroute to 163.125.1.2 (163.125.1.2), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
 1  140.222.89.4 (140.222.89.4)  2 ms  2 ms  3 ms Seattle
 2  140.222.88.4 (140.222.88.4)  3 ms  3 ms  2 ms Seattle
 3  140.222.8.1 (140.222.8.1)  14 ms  13 ms  27 ms San Francisco
 4  140.222.16.1 (140.222.16.1)  22 ms  21 ms  21 ms Los Angeles
 5  140.222.64.1 (140.222.64.1)  48 ms  48 ms  49 ms Houston
 6  140.222.104.2 (140.222.104.2)  73 ms  73 ms  73 ms Atlanta
 7  140.222.105.1 (140.222.105.1)  73 ms  73 ms  73 ms Atlanta
 8  140.222.138.1 (140.222.138.1)  74 ms  74 ms  76 ms Georgia Tech.
 9  128.167.192.2 (128.167.192.2)  81 ms  76 ms  76 ms
 10  128.167.160.1 (128.167.160.1)  81 ms  83 ms  107 ms
 11  128.167.159.2 (128.167.159.2)  192 ms  114 ms  110 ms
 12  128.167.168.2 (128.167.168.2)  117 ms  107 ms  101 ms
 13  128.167.183.2 (128.167.183.2)  131 ms  140 ms  130 ms
 14  163.125.1.2 (163.125.1.2)  137 ms  135 ms  130 ms