HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: blb@bradford.stortek.com (Barry Bradford-x8660)
Subject: JOB: UNIX System Administrator
Summary: system admin
Keywords: job
Organization: Storage Technology Corp.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 14:55:07 GMT


POSITION:     UNIX System Administrator

GENERAL:      Applicants must be able to assist with administration
              and support of a heterogenous network of primarily Suns, 
              but also PC's and Xterms. Should have a minimum of 2-4 
              years experience working in a UNIX environment.  A solid 
              working knowledge of UNIX based networking, PC/LAN experience, 
              configuration management, and end user support a plus. 
              Excellent verbal and written communication skills desired.
              The title for this position is Software Engineer, supporting
              UNIX development in the Software Engineering organization. 

DUTIES:       Maintain system files (fstab, crontab, passwd, etc.),
              install third party software and related upgrades, administer
              maintenance procedures, perform general user administration 
              (new accounts, requests, problem determination and resolution), 
              help with planning and system growth determination.

REQUIREMENTS: BS/MS in Engineering, Computer Science, or a closely 
              related field, plus 2-4 years experience; or AA degree
              with 4+ years experience.

COMPANY:      Storage Technology Corporation (StorageTek) is dedicated
              to being the preferred provider of high-performance
              information storage and retrieval solutions to IBM, other
              mainframe, and large network marketplaces worldwide. We
              are located in Louisville, CO at the base of the Rocky
              Mountains.  StorageTek has an excellent benefit program,
              and is extremely active in promoting employee health and
              well-being.  StorageTek is an Equal Opportunity Employer.

CONTACT:      E-mail is preferred at this time, but US-mail is also
              acceptable using the addresses below.

              Barry_Bradford@stortek.com

              Barry Bradford
              Storage Technology Corporation
              2270 South 88th Street
              Louisville, CO 80028-5209

--
*									*
* Barry_Bradford@stortek.com                                            *
* Barry Bradford                                                        *
* Storage Technology Corp.                                              *
* Louisville, CO 80028                                                   *
*                                                                       *
*    Of course these are my opinions.  No one else would want them.     *
*                                                                       *
Newsgroups: co.general
From: erantane@duke.agsci.colostate.edu ()
Subject: FISHING BOAT WANTED 
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1993 19:24:46 GMT
Reply-To: erantane@duke.agsci.colostate.edu ()
Organization: Colorado State University
Keywords: BOAT


	I am looking for a used 12 to 14 foot aluminum boat for fishing with or
without trailer and motor. If your close to Fort Collins (Denver OK)
please respond.

			
					Thanks,

					Echo 


Newsgroups: co.general
From: rgordon@convex.com (Rob Gordon)
Subject: Amendment 2 Discussion
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:25:25 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
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 all you CoSprings netters:

Friday, Jan 8 at 6:00pm a Ground Zero rep (your's truly) will be discussing
Amendment 2 related issues on KGFT 100.7FM with Will Perkins, the Exec.
Director of Colorado for Family values. It is a call-in show. Phone
is 531-5555. KGFT is a Christian radio show in Co Springs so it should
be an interesting audience.

rob



Xref: sparky co.general:2374 rec.skiing:9190 rec.travel:17289
From: jrbd@craycos.com (James Davies)
Newsgroups: co.general,rec.skiing,rec.travel
Subject: Re: Amendment 2 Yet Again (was Re: Colorado Ski Report)
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:02:54 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1993Jan6.142814.28485@linus.mitre.org> sokay@cyclone.mitre.org (Stephen J. Okay) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.004158.408@hpcvca.cv.hp.com> scott@hpcvccl.cv.hp.com (Scott Linn) writes:
>>
>>It's not quite so simple.  The way the law is written, if you are fired
>>just because you are homosexual, you have no recourse in court based on
>>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....

Amendment 2 doesn't say "anybody", it specifically singles out homosexuals,
bisexuals, and lesbians.  Laws protecting heterosexuals are still allowed.

  Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments,
  nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school
  districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation,
  ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation,
  conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the
  basis of, or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any
  minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of
  discrimination.  This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects
  self-executing.
Newsgroups: co.general,rec.skiing,rec.travel,nyx.misc,du.general,bit.list
From: aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt)
Subject: Re: Colorado Ski Report
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 18:57:24 GMT

In <1993Jan9.181749.12797@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> thester@nyx.cs.du.edu (Uncle Fester) writes:


>     In response to Andrew Burt's (aburt) proposal of creating 
>     a group dedicated to Amendment 2 discussion:

>                        I vote NO.

>     It's probably a good idea in one respect; those people that
>     are actively involved in it would join the group.
>     My only objection is that persons *not* wanting to hear about
>     it would never subscribe.

No, read what I said more closely -- I said that *after* it starts in some
group, it could be moved to this group.  I'm sure it will still start
in groups all over the place, but once they start a conflagration, it
should be moved to this new group.  Most of the bigots, etc., will have seen
enough to get their dander up by then, and will move if they're interested.
They'll already have seen something about it before that though.

Also, regarding using alt.homosexual, as another reply suggested --
this isn't about homosexuality!  It's about denying rights to a group
of Americans!

I'm not a homosexual, and I'd vote against this amendment if it said
heterosexuals, green eyed people, Agnostics, computer illiterates, or
almost any other set of humans.  The thought that it passed is appalling.
The reasons I've heard from people I know who voted for it make me all
the more against it.  But it has nothing to do with sex, it has to do with
rights.  So again I say, it needs it's own group.  I thought the suggestion
of alt.politics.colo-amend2 was fine, so I'll go with that as a working
title.

Other arguments against it?
-- 

Andrew Burt 		   					  aburt@du.edu

"But if he was dying he wouldn't bother to carve "Aaaaargh", he'd just say it."
Newsgroups: co.general
From: timothy@eddie.rmNUG.org
Subject: Rocky Mountain NeXT User's Group Meeting
Organization: Rocky Mountain NeXT Users' Group
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:34:36 GMT

WHAT: Rocky Mountain NeXT User's Group Meeting
WHEN: Wednesday, January 13, 7:00pm
WHERE: Random Access, 8000 East Iliff Ave, Denver

- The Rocky Mountain NeXT User's Group would like to invite you to  
our January gathering. It will be held at Random Access in south east  
Denver (see directions below).

SPEAKER: Clifford Matthews, president and founder of ARDI.

TOPIC: Macintosh emulation for the NeXT!  Executor is the result of 6  
years meticulous coding of the Macintosh ROMs from scratch.  The  
quality of their work is so good that MS Word ran on the 040 Next  
before the Apple Quadra!

Come meet the driving force behind ARDI, Clifford Matthews. Meeting  
at 7:00 PM at Random Access (directions below). Short introduction  
period followed by the ARDI presentation, a slick demo of version  
1.3, a question and answer period, then an informal social time. 

One lucky person will win our drawing for a copy of Executor.  NeXT  
machines will be available for public inspection. 

DIRECTIONS: From I-25 take the Evans exit east. Evans is south of the  
Colorado Blvd exit and north of the Hampden Ave exit. After  
approximately 2 miles, Evans jags and becomes Iliff, go .5 miles  
farther and it will be on your right across from the White Glove Hand  
Car Wash.
-- 
Tim Miller, Boulder, CO
timothy@eddie.rmNUG.org [NeXTmail accepted]
Newsgroups: co.general,rec.skiing,rec.travel
From: maman@mars.Colorado.EDU (Nathan M. Maman)
Subject: Sorry [was: Work Laws]
Followup-To: co.general
Reply-To: maman@boulder.Colorado.EDU
Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:08:22 GMT

Hi,

msw@meaddata.com (Michael Walpole) and Glen Baker
<glenb@hpsrmjs.sr.hp.com> wrote to me the following:

M.Walpole>       What's this got to do with skiing anyway?

G.Baker>          A fine question, but not really applicable to rec.skiing. If
G.Baker>         you don't   already know how, please get somebody to show you
G.Baker>         how to edit your   newsgroups line (not really your fault, the
G.Baker>         original poster cross-posted   and now we're seeing all the
G.Baker>         responses....<sigh>).

I apologize for the rec.skiing and rec.travel newsgroups readers.
[Followup set to co.general]

					Nat
--
M. Nathan M. MAMAN,  Campus Box 429,  Boulder COLORADO 80309, USA
EM:maman@boulder.Colorado.EDU TEL:(303)492-4481 FAX:(303)492-4990
Newsgroups: co.general
From: rosinski@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Jim Rosinski)
Subject: Re: Colorado amendment 2 information / boycott
Followup-To: co.general
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 04:54:00 GMT

marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella) writes:

>Eric writes:
> 
>: Hate to differ with you, but I'm paying higher auto insurance rates
>: because I am a single male, under 25 years old. I'm clearly being
>: discriminated against because of my marital status, sex and age, but
>: you don't hear me crying about it.
>
>And you wouldn't have a case anyhow.  The nondiscrimination laws generally
>apply only to hiring and housing.  Next question?

But maybe he *should* have a case.  To those of you squawking about how
terrible "discrimination" is: Do you have an answer to the question Eric 
implied: Why is it "bad" to discriminate against someone because they are 
black, gay, or female, but "ok" to discriminate against someone because they 
are male, under 25, or single?  Hint: "Because the law says what it does",
as Marc essentially answers above, is not sufficient.


Jim Rosinski
Newsgroups: co.general
From: altinbay@netcom.com (John Altinbay)
Subject: Re: Stripped of Civil Rights?
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 03:53:53 GMT

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.  It does
>remove the "right" to be considered a minority.

Yes, do let's keep it in perspective.  Here's the amendment:

-- Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments,
-- nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities, or school
-- districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance
-- or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct,
-- practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of,
-- or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority
-- status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination.

So we're saying that certain people cannot claim discrimination!


>  Thus, this is sort of
>"second order" discrimination.  Other states such as Georgia practice
>"first order" discrimination against gays and lesbians by making it
>illegal to be gay or lesbian.
>


We're not as bad as they are, so we're OK?

I don't follow.
-- 
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,co.politics.amend2.discuss
From: maman@mars.Colorado.EDU (Nathan M. Maman)
Subject: In need for clarification on #2 [was: Colorado Ski Report]
Followup-To: co.politics.amend2.discuss
Reply-To: maman@boulder.Colorado.EDU
Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:12:43 GMT

[
    I've taken out `rec.skiing', `rec.travel', `nyx.misc',
    `du.general', `bit.listserv.travel-l' from the Newsgroups: line
    and added `co.politics.amend2.discuss' where the Followup-To: are
    also redirected to.
]

		Three things:

A) Marriage:

	In article <1993Jan8.003732.10002@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
	zstewart@nyx.cs.du.edu (Zhahai Stewart) writes:

	Z.Stewart|>      Every state and the federal
	Z.Stewart|>      government grant special rights to heterosexuals, which are
	Z.Stewart|>      unavailable to homosexuals (ref: marriage).

	Is it stated in the law that a gay man and a gay woman cannot
	be married?  Or that two straight men can be married together?
	:-)

B) Spelling:

	I saw two slightly different versions of Amendment #2:
	mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella) and jrbd@craycos.com (James
	Davies) wrote:

		Neither  the  State of Colorado,   through any of  its
		branches or departments,    nor any  of its  agencies,
		political  subdivisions,     municipalities  or school
		districts, shall enact,  adopt or enforce any statute,
		regulation,  ordinance or policy  whereby  homosexual,
		lesbian, or bisexual   orientation, conduct, practices
		or relationships shall  constitute or otherwise be the
		basis of, or entitle any person or class of persons to
		have or claim  any minority status, quota preferences,
		protected  status or  claim of   discrimination.  This
		Section of  the Constitution shall be in  all respects
		self-executing.

	and thester@nyx.cs.du.edu (Uncle Fester) wrote it with `enact'
	instead of `entitle' in the above.

	Which one is the right version?  Or are they both wrong?

C) Sueing:

    1) For sexual orientation discrimination:

	Can some employee that has been fired for its sexual
	orientation sue its employer, whatever is that sexual
	orientation?

	Provided the above version is correct, it's written in A#2
	``[...] homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct,
	practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be
	the basis of, or entitle any person [...]''.  So any sexual
	orientation still constitutes a basis for a lawsuit, as far as
	I understand it.

    2) Wording of a judgement:

	Is a judgement in one or more of those categories ``statute,
	regulation, ordinance or policy''?

	If that's the case, then can the words ``homosexual, lesbian,
	or bisexual'' be used in a judgement without rendering it
	void?

					Nat
--
M. Nathan M. MAMAN,  Campus Box 429,  Boulder COLORADO 80309, USA
EM:maman@boulder.Colorado.EDU TEL:(303)492-4481 FAX:(303)492-4990
Newsgroups: co.general
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2 Yet Again (was Re: Colorado Ski Report)
Organization: NCAR, Boulder CO
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:55:04 GMT

> = kbowles@den.mmc.com (mac bowles) writes:
>> = dlawren@salsa.abq.bdm.com (David P. Lawrence) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>                                   There is NO WAY that anyone can read
>> the bible and afterwards believe that homosexuality is sanctioned by God.
>> It is a sin that can be forgiven but is still a sin none the less.  If you
>> don't like this don't blame me. . . I did not make the rules God did!  
>> You can choose to live by them or not...
>>
>> "Truly read" these scriptures and see what you think. . .
>> Romans 1:24-28  1Corinthians 6:9-11   Leviticus 20:13   Leviticus 18:22
>>*--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-*

Do you really believe & follow *everything* spelled out in Leviticus? <y,n>
Or do you pick and choose bible verses to taste?

o Do you atoned for your sins by cutting the organs out of a live animals
  with a knife and then burn their bodies on an alter?
  (normally a couple sparrows will do, if you can't afford a sheep or goat)
o Do you think it's a sin to eat shellfish?
o Do you think it's a sin to wear clothing made of two types of fabric? 
o Do you banash menstruating women into the woods?

>Right! Refer to verses out of the Bible, out of context. You can not take a 
>single line or a small set of lines from the Bible and have them stand alone.
>You MUST take them in context with the rest and understand the whole message, 
>not twist the message by taking little parts of it and warping them to fit
>whatever evil purpose you have in mind! [...]

-Brian
Newsgroups: co.general
From: eric@igs.com (Eric Janik)
Subject: Colorado Ski Report
Organization: IGS, Inc.
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 01:03:01 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.053155.19529@ncar.ucar.edu> Jim Rosinski writes:

	I see no reason why you should feel threatened by homosexuals.  On the
	other hand, always fear laws ostensibly designed to protect "rights",
	which in fact act to deny freedom of association.  Do you *really* want
	the government telling businesses who they must hire or otherwise
	associate with?

I, too, am suspicious of this kind of infringement happening.  On the other
hand, I believe that the "law" and business in practice are quite different
from from an ideal model of "free association".

No company is forced to hire anybody management considers flakey.  There are
plenty of reasons for not hiring someone without going into race, religion,
or sexual behavior.  "We didn't think this person would get along in our shop"
is a perfectly valid excuse.

In practice, I think the issue manifests itself more as a conflict between
a supervisor and a subordinate in a corporate situation.  At the time of hire,
no problem existed.  After time and changes, people stop getting along and
people end up saying or doing something regrettable.

In practice, a civil rights law makes it explicitly unacceptable for an
employer to tell the employment office, "We fired him because he's a fag."
It would also prevent the employment board from denying benefits on this
basis.  Still, Colorado is a "right to work" (sic) state, which means employ-
ers can fire anybody they choose not to work with.

In the matter of civil rights laws, I have no grudge against a community that
believes it can ensure the rights of individuals without special rules, and
makes a reasonable effort to do so.  I do generally believe that less rules
is better rules, if it still gets the job done.  I am just pessimistic that
ruling majorities will always show due respect for the minority groups and
dissenters they overrule.  This is the field where I believe the debate
between liberals and conservatives should happen.

What galls me about Ammendment 2 is that besides invalidating sexual
orientation as a basis for charging discriminition, it is mean, dishonest,
cowardly, and it prevents communities from considering all reasonable options.

Eric Janik
Lyons, Colorado
Xref: sparky co.general:2368 rec.skiing:9179 rec.travel:17280
From: mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella)
Newsgroups: co.general,rec.skiing,rec.travel
Subject: Re: Amendment 2 Yet Again (was Re: Colorado Ski Report)
Date: 6 Jan 1993 16:58:33 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]

Two points in one post, to make it easier for you uninterested folks to skip
over:

Stephen J. Okay (sokay@cyclone.mitre.org) wrote:

: 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.

Not quite; it implicitly allows special or privileged status to lots of folks -
racial minorities, women, physically disabled persons; nor does anything deny
this status to any group at all - bald people could get the protection if they
were able to get a local ordinance passed.  The amendment only denied this
protection to homosexuals.  Thus, even without the "discrimination" clause,
this amendment was wrong, I believe - it singled out one group for no reason
given, and denied them something not explicitly denied to anyone else.

Someone else wrote:

>Obviously the spirit that guides you is not the Holy Spirit.  No
>self-respecting Christian would openly support a life style such
>as homosexuality.

You don't have to "openly support" a life style to believe that its
practicioners should be afforded the same basic civil rights granted to all
other law-abiding citizens.

--
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
From: altinbay@netcom.com (John Altinbay)
Subject: Re: Colorado Ski Report
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 04:48:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.180612.23341@tigger.jvnc.net> lee%polarsun@rna.rockefeller.edu writes:
>ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
>>>                               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?
>
> Or how about a place where its not acceptable to grant special
>treatment and priviledges to certain groups of individuals.
>


-- 
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
From: rosinski@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Jim Rosinski)
Subject: Re: Colorado Ski Report, etc., etc., etc.
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 05:31:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.010242.1698@igs.com> eric@igs.com (Eric Janik) writes:

>Will somebody please tell me why I should feel threatened by homosexuals
>or the possibility of laws helping them secure their civil rights?

I see no reason why you should feel threatened by homosexuals.  On the other
hand, always fear laws ostensibly designed to protect "rights", which in fact
act to deny freedom of association.  Do you *really* want the government
telling businesses who they must hire or otherwise associate with?


Jim Rosinski
Newsgroups: co.general