HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gill@physics.ubc.ca (Arnold Gill)
Subject: Re: Canada's country code?
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 05:45:00 GMT

carlos@garfield.cs.mun.ca (Carlos Borges) writes:

>Anyone know what Canada's "Country Code" is?
>If I was in Europe, for example, and I wanted to call Canada,
>what would the code be?  Does this differ from country to country?
>Or is there a "Standard" country-code list somewhere?

     All of North America has the same country code, as the area code
systems are integrated.  You can discover what it is in any phone book
where ever you are travelling.  Or so I would hope!  :-)

--
Arnold Gill --- astrophysician trainee in exile             gill@physics.ubc.ca
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,can.general
From: CZ94 <CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA>
Subject: Re: How I'm Voting on Oct. 26
Organization: McGill University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:13:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.162139.22848@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <Bv635s.1IJ@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca> jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>>
>> Does the  equivalent of witholding one's vote exist for the
>>Oct 26 event? I will default to a no vote if the legal text is not
>>available and witholding is also not an option.
>>
>There is no "neither"...spoiling your ballot or abstaining is the
>moral equivalent of a yes vote.

Why?

>They will only count "yes" and "no"...one might figure they might
>mention the number of spoiled ballots, but those will be viewed
>as a reluctant "yes"...but a "yes" nevertheless.

Viewed by whom?  Are yu seriously suggesting that if 35 % of the
electorate vote "yes", 40 % vote "no", and 25 % stay home, then
Mulroney & Co. will claim that the "yes" has won, 60-40?  What's
the basis for your assertion?
>
Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA

Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: The importance of training...
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 16:36:22 GMT

I have already posted most of my opinions on education and training
and about how we need a universal voucher system for education and
training to help individuals and business, and about how the
Charlottetown Accord fails miserably and worsens the possibility
that Canada will be able to deal with its "training" problem because
it eliminates the ability of the federal government to set up
such a voucher system, and it guarentees that UI will never be
anything more than a glorified welfare system.

The transfer of training to the provinces, the premiers opposition
to the free movement of peoples, and their increased control of
equalization will lead to a patchwork and ghettoized Canada.

Charlottetown worsens our ability to deal with the economic challenges
we face...and if anything bring unity, it will be properity, and
Charlottetown makes it harder to bring prosperity and opportunity
to Canadians in every part of Canada...and thus Charlottetown will
usher in more disunity, more interregional squabbling, and the
disintegration of the country.

Canadians MUST vote NO to Charlottetown!

Gerald
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:7186 can.politics:7968 can.general:4765
From: mousseau@paun01.pa.msu.edu (Mike Thorpe)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,can.general
Subject: Re: I was going to vote yes, BUT NOW ....
Date: 4 Oct 92 20:33:25 GMT
Reply-To: mousseau@paun01.pa.msu.edu (Mike Thorpe)
Organization: Michigan State University


In article <BvIAuC.IC@sun3.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca>, ward@sun15.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) writes:

|> Some would say the government should not be paying for the education
|> system, it is up to those individuals who wish their children to be
|> educated to pay for it (and those who have no children would then not
|> pay).  Others would point out that when people are paying school taxes
|> they are effectively just paying back for the education they received
|> when they were a child.
   
    Ces deux arguments ne sont pas completement valides.  Comme le taux des
taxes scolaires est independant de la scolarite du citoyen, le deuxieme 
argument implique que l'obtention d'un simple diplome primaire coute 
beaucoup plus cher par annee de scolarite qu'un diplome universitaire.
De meme, s'il est vrai que le principal benificiaire d'un diplome est son
detenteur, il n'en demeure pas moins que la societe en general s'en trouve
enrichie.  Faute de travailleurs specialises, il est impossible d'attirer
des entreprises oeuvrant dans les secteurs secondaire et tertiaire. 
L'arrivee de telles entreprises generera alors des retombees pour les moins
instruits; a la fois directement sous forme d'emplois crees dans la 
nouvelle entreprise et dans des entreprises parasites et indirectement,
par la generation de revenu d'impots.  Ce qui explique pourquoi le 
gouvernement doit etre responsable de payer pour l'education de tous. 


|> You're environment example is very widely used, but false.  One only
|> needs the individual right to life to protect the environment - someone
|> should not pollute because it infringes on someone else's right to life.
|> In fact, it is the collective demands that led to pollution in the first
|> place.  In Britain in the 1800s when smokestacks were kicking out all kinds
|> of gunk, the courts/gov't declared that it was OK, because it produced
|> many goods/wealth.  Thus those people who owned property that was being 
|> polluted just had to put up with it.  That's collective rights in action!


	Ce n'est pas parce que le gouvernement a des rates qu'il faut 
conclure qu'il est inutile.  L'environnement est pourtant un exemple
frappant des droits de la collectivite versus ceux de l'individu.  Comment
peut-on invoquer les droits individuels pour proteger le thon de l'Atlantique
de surpeche ?  On peut seulement justifier cette protection en invoquant le
besoin de conserver cette richesse pour le generations futures, au risque
de creer d'une perte d'emploi immediate.  Il est impensable d'esperer que
les pecheurs, deja dans une situation economique precaire, decident de leur
plein gre de restreindre leur peche, d'ou la necessite d'une gestion
gouvernementale capable de voir un peu plus loin (jusqu'au prochaine elections :-) ).

	Normand Mousseau
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:7079 can.politics:7677
From: uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk (Peter Bartlett)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Ontario "socialism"
Date: 1 Oct 92 10:41:33 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium

jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:


>	A possible problem with the voucher system is that if the number
>students  wanting to go to university greatly outnumber the supply of 
>'slots' available at universities accepting the vouchers, the mediocre
>universities will still get those students who  want  or need to university,
>but who couldn't get  accepted at the 'desirable' schools.  

>	Who  decides how many vouchers get issued?

>							James Nicoll

Precisely.  There is this implied assumption that somehow these little bits
of paper will improve things.  Surely the problem is that universities are
getting demoralized and underfunded.  It is difficult to see how the former
will get changed by the addition of "vouchers".  And, as I think is 
implied in James' comment, presumably the funding available will still be
controlled both by the number of vouchers issued and the value of the
vouchers.  There is simply no reason to see why things will get better.

Somebody asked me about the Citizen's Charter over here, and it is really
precisely the same point.  We have horrendous waiting lists for medical
care in the UK, and we have had no serious investment in the public transit
system since the mid-1970's, resulting in subway trains which are slow
and break down.  What the citizen's charter does is to provide the user of
services with a token recompense if "standards" aren't met-- you may lose
a leg, but you can get a few quid back from the health authority (and I do
mean a *few* quid).  You may be stuck on the underground for an hour and
miss your job interview completely, but you can get your fare back.

Which of course fails to address the problem of systemic underfunding of the
systems in question.  If these charters are to make any sense, funds have
to be provided so that the service providers can raise the standard of 
services to the level provided in the charter.  On the other hand, if they
are provided with this money, they will presumably do this anyway (I know 
this is anathema to the right wing, but people in most of these jobs really
*do* want to run a good service).  And in that case, who needs the Charter?

peter.
From: wales@valeria.cs.ucla.edu (Rich Wales)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: US dual citizenship (was Re: Are foreignborn kids of UK citizens british?)
Date: 29 Sep 92 00:21:00 GMT
Reply-To: wales@CS.UCLA.EDU (Rich Wales)
Organization: UCLA CS Department, Los Angeles

Gary Dare wrote:

	Rich Wales of UCLA has posted latest FTP downloading info
	about his FAQ file on U.S. citizenship in Soc.culture.canada
	...  try to get ahold of it the next time he posts it.

The file is available as "pub/faq.dualcit" via anonymous FTP from
valeria.cs.ucla.edu (131.179.64.36).  Or, if you don't have Internet
FTP access, let me know and I'll send you a copy via e-mail.

--
Rich Wales <wales@CS.UCLA.EDU> // UCLA Computer Science Department
3531 Boelter Hall // Los Angeles, CA 90024-1596 // +1 (310) 825-5683
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.general,can.politics
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: Availability of Charlottetown Agreement and of Legal Text
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 92 12:40:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.035153.2028@unixg.ubc.ca> mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander) writes:
>In the October 3 edition of The Globe and Mail, and of the Financial
>Times (and presumably other newspapers as well), the federal government
>has purchased ads giving the complete text of the Charlottetown agreement.

Same for the Ottawa Citizen and Montreal Gazette.
Even in exactly the same format and type face.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:6954 can.politics:7422
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Ontario "socialism"
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:44:15 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <jstewart.717647399@cunews> jstewart@alfred.carleton.ca (John Stewart) writes:
> In <1992Sep26.160351.43895@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk> uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk (Peter Bartlett) writes:
> >Am I the only one who remembers that Ontario voted for a *change* from the
> >Liberals?  
> 
> Our parliamentary system was designed on the assumption that there would
> only be two political parties.  Since there are three major parties plus
> a number of fringe parties we now have this ridiculous situation in
> which a party can get a majority with considerably less than 50% of the
> vote.  That's what happened -- the NDP got a majority government with only
> 31% of the vote!  69% of the electorate indicated that they DID NOT want 
> an NDP government.

Ontario would benefit from a dose of proportional representation. The divisive
politcs of the two-party systems create more trouble than it's worth.

> 
> >And be honest-- isn't it refreshing to have a government that
> >believes *something*?  At least sort of?
> 
> I'd rather have a government that is responsible to the people.

You MUST be a PR advocate, then, because the current voting system in Ontario
will never deliver this.

-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for proportional representation. It
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            | looks like we may get a more  
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,can.general
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: How I'm Voting on Oct. 26
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:10:32 GMT

In article <13008@gilchris> hans@Software.Mitel.COM (Hans Johnsen) writes:
>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>There is no "neither"...spoiling your ballot or abstaining is the
>>moral equivalent of a yes vote.
>
>Male bovine excreta! Not voting will (as always) be interpretted as
>"I don't care". Spoiling your ballot will be interpretted as "I
>care, but am unwilling to make a decision on this question." Now
>the reason you are unwilling to decide will NOT be clear.
>
>I hope everyone takes note that it isn't just the Yes side which is
>using manipulative arguements in this debate. Here is an example of
>a manipulative No arguement.
>

Male bovine excreta!

In the Canadian part of the referendum, "no" voters will inevitably
be more motivated...you could argue that I am working against my own
cause by encouraging people not to abstain or spoil their ballot...
since most reasonable people would agree that the vast majority of people who 
abstain or spoil their ballots would more likely vote "yes" than
"no" (outside Quebec). 

If you were to talk to a "yes" strategist, I would dare say that
turnout is one of their key concerns, and that they view apathy
or ambivalence as helping the "no" side...since votes not cast or
spoiled are mostly "yes" votes lost.

It is terrible strategy, rather than manipulation on my part to
suggest that spoiling ones ballot or abstaining is the "moral"
equivalent of a yes vote...I should be encouraging "yes" voters
to waste their vote..."no" voters will vote...but I am a democrat 
through and through...and am just stating the likely fact...abstaining
or spoiling your ballot will not count as a vote, but it is
the "moral" equivalent of a yes vote.

Gerald

Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: dbowman@rainbow (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Royal Bank hypocrisy and the Telecommunications Sellout
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:45:03 GMT

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: Posted without permission...
: ...from the Globe and Mail, October 2, 1992: page B2:

[Rest of plagiarised article deleted] 

Is there no rules regarding theft of intellectual property and the Net?
People who wish to read the Globe and Mail can buy it. Why not simply say,
"There was an interesting article in Oct 2 G+M, here is what I like about
it..." rather than typing in page after page without adding anything
yourself?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:7126 can.politics:7802
From: robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Ontario "socialism"
Date: 1 Oct 92 22:21:50 GMT

iaf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Innes Ferguson) writes:
> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
> >I remember something about Ontarians being ticked off with the Liberal
> >leader for timing the election so as to try to take advantage of
> >ignorance/apathy.  I don't particularly remember anything about
> >particularly wanting socialism...
> 
> They could have voted PC but they didn't! Do you think voters are
> that stupid? Do you think they base their votes solely on knee-jerk
> reactions to the ruling party?

Do you think they aren't that stupid?
I hope that at least Bob knows why he was elected.

I remember things going like this:
    1) Election:  everybody hates Billy so Peter is elected
    2) Billy retires
    3) Peter seeing that his arch-nemesis, the PC's, are in total rout
       calls an election to, ummm, consolidate his position
    4) Peter campaigns mostly on what a great guy he is
    5) 8% sales tax, corruption, and self-serving election become main 
       issues
    6) Peter promises to reduce tax to 7% if elected
    7) Voters stuck between an inexperienced golf-pro (what was his name :-)
       from Billy's party and with the same minions, Peter, the
       opportunist, and Bob, pick Bob.
    8) The entire province looks at each other and says
       "Oh my God!  What have we done."

> Always thinking of yourself... Must be a tory.

Never thinking... Must be a socialist.

Rob.
--
Robert A. Osborne   ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or robert@isgtec.com
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:7169 can.politics:7924
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: The Fraser Institute weighs in...
Date: 4 Oct 92 00:13:34 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Oct3.223600.12399@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>the far West overtaxed and underrepresented, will fray the citizenship
>ties that bind, and will ultimately stir sovereignist sentiments in
>the far West.

I used to be kind and call that conjecture.
I'll be accurate this time and call it pure propaganda.
People on the net call it "drivel".                          :-)

First, your statement above is not substantiated at all. How
is it that the west will be overtaxed and underrepresented?
We will still have rep by pop in Canada, don't we, except Quebec?
(and even in Quebec's case it will remain pretty close in the near future)

Second, if you think the richer western provinces should not be paying
any equalization payments at all, then why not try to use that reason
as your rallying cry for western separation? Go give it a spin over in
Victoria, B.C., and be ready for a rude awakening when old folk over
there remind you that B.C. hasn't always been the one paying out over
the last 100 years.

Michael MY Hui  myhui@bnr.ca  Ottawa Canada
From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Yes = ? No = ?
Date: 1 Oct 92 00:18:49 GMT
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: clamen@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <BvEJ5t.5I1@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:

   Without any legal text to support the referendum, YES camp is claiming
   that :

   YES stops Quebec separatism
   YES saves Canada
   NO means Quebec secession
   NO means Canada end

   This with the participation of Guy Lafleur as a star of the YES camp
   indicates how low profile is the opinion of the YES camp about the
   intelligence of voters.

   How can a NO gives Quebec secession while many organisms against Quebec
   secession are joining the NO camp?  If those who are involved directly
   in the fight of Quebec secession are against the deal, there must be
   something wrong, NO?

You are right in saying that not all people voting NO think that their
vote encourages Quebec secession.  It is possible, however, that
Mulroney and others DO think so.  Personally, I do believe that to be
the case, and the fact that my opinion is similar to Mulroney's
rhetoric is pure coincidence.

--
Stewart M. Clamen			Internet:    clamen@cs.cmu.edu
School of Computer Science		UUCP: 	     uunet!"clamen@cs.cmu.edu"
Carnegie Mellon University		Phone: 	     +1 412 268 2145
5000 Forbes Avenue			Fax:	     +1 412 268 5739
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891, USA
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:6982 can.politics:7466
From: uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk (Peter Bartlett)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Ontario "socialism"
Date: 29 Sep 92 12:13:22 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium

jstewart@alfred.carleton.ca (John Stewart) writes:

>You are entirely correct in stating that any government would be stuck with
>unpopular choices during this recession.  Unfortunately our NDP government 
>doesn't seem to understand that economic recovery must take precedence over
>social legislation.  
> 
Another way of saying this is `who cares about a just society, as long as
we're *rich*.  And let's not have any illusions about this-- without the 
social legislation, the "we" who will get the benefits of the recovery are
those as has now-- i.e. generally men, generally white, generally rich, 
generally heterosexual, generally without physical, emotional, or psychiatric
difficulties ...  And don't tell me that it will all change when we are
in a state of economic recovery-- that, along with "your cheque is in the 
mail" and "I won't cum inside you" have got to be the three great lies of
all time.  Over here, it's been almost 14 years since Thatcher came to power.
There have been good times, and there have been bad times, and the poor are
still getting poorer.

peter
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: Appointments to the Supreme Court
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 92 21:04:19 GMT

In article <BvG7MH.Mos@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>I can deal with this analogy. I think, before we have to scramble to put the
>broken egg back together, we should get off the wall safely, through a YES
>vote.

It's well nigh impossible to put an egg back together after it's been scrambled.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:6934 can.politics:7388
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: David Crane on the Accord
Date: 28 Sep 92 13:05:21 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: 
: [He then goes on to suggest that fear will be the "Yes" side's
: most effective weapon]
: 

And hatred and intolerance is the NO sides most effective and most used
weapon.

It is far easier to tear down than build up. It is easier to ridicule than to
praise. By preying on the base nature of humanity it is easy to build support
for yourself. One only has to look at David Duke in Louisianna to see this.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Canada's country code?
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:22:08 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Sep29.134729.6923@seachg.uucp> burke@seachg.uucp (Michael Burke) writes:

> Sorry Laurence - the US has the unique distinction of being the only
> country which does NOT have its own code, and uses Canada's code
> instead.  Only fair that Canada have the country code "1" since the

In fact, the country code for Canada is "002".

> vechicle for its use - the telephone - was invented there. :^)

I didn't know that Massachusetts was a part of Canada.
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:7153 can.politics:7887
From: mousseau@paun01.pa.msu.edu (Mike Thorpe)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: I was going to vote yes, BUT NOW ....
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:58:00 GMT
Reply-To: mousseau@paun01.pa.msu.edu (Mike Thorpe)
Organization: Michigan State University


In article <BvI85F.DBw@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca>, pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward) writes:

|> Yes, I noticed that too.  Funnily enough, though, I didn't notice
|> the double majority required for anglophone senators when the issue
|> pertains to ENGLISH language or culture.  Seems to me, we don't decide
|> their culture, but they decide ours.
|> 

	Pas si vite !  Il n'y aura tout de meme que 10 % de senateurs
francophones.  Je ne crois pas que ca suffira pour destabiliser la culture
anglophone !


	Normand Mousseau
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics