HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Mother Nature <gaea@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Bicycle Helmets
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 19:31:12 GMT

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
>gaea@zooid.guild.org writes:
>> To paraphrase what I said, I like going out on rides around my neighbourhood
>> where I am going no more than twice the speed of a walking person. I can
>> still fall off my bike, but I doubt I'll be doing much damage.
>
>Cyclists who believe this are "potential brain injury cases."  An object
>dropping 2m reaches a speed of 22.5 km/h, and it's all too easy to lose your
>balance and either get tangled in the bike or panic, and thus fall over and hit
>your head on a hard surface.  Serious injuries from cyclists at low or zero
>speed are not a theory, they're documented statistics.  :(

Since when is the average bicycle 2m high? I've never fallen off of my bicycle
while standing still or going slow, I've been riding as a method of
transportation for about 4 years now. While it's still possible, I think it's
more likely that I'll trip over something when walking (which I do fairly
often).

If you want to look at it that way, they should make helmet use manditory for
a lot of things, such as tobogganing. Last time I did that, I hit a patch of
ice, flew about 15 feet in the air, and landed on my head. Or so I was told.


>> that's hip height or so, they don't call it a "wall accident" (gotta watch
>> out for those... :)
>
>For the statistics, I suppose the difference is in that one happens while using
>a bicycle.  Why it might be worse than tripping over something or falling off a
>chair is likely a combination of factors.  On a bike you are more likely to
>fall sideways, rather than simply crumpling, which puts you in a more likely
>position for head injuries.  Also, you might be more likely to panic or
>"freeze" while losing balance on a bike, again putting your head and neck
>muscles (as well as other parts of your body) in a position and condition that
>could result in more serious injuries than a simple fall.  In a simple fall,
>you might not tense as much, or you might twist or use your arms to minimize
>the damage.

Quite true. However I also think it would make a little more sense to better
educate drivers and cyclists rather than trying to enforce a helmet law.
That's really what I was saying in the first place, I DO think helmets are a
good idea, but I just don't think they should be manditory. Call me stupid,
but at least it's my own life I'm playing with. 

Gaea
gaea@zooid.guild.org


Xref: sparky can.general:3443 can.politics:5415
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
Subject: Dominion of Canada (was RE: Political power of provinces)
Date: 25 Jul 92 14:29:48 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <12370@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>In article (Christopher Browne) writes:
>
>>Until that time, no province is a state.  Not even Quebec, which is,
>>even still, a part of the Dominion of Canada, a state that is, by
>>federal policy, officially bilingual.
>
>Sorry to disappoint you, but Canada is not a Dominium (i.e., a vassal
>state of the British Empire) anymore.
>
We went over this a few weeks ago, but I guess Francois wasn't
paying attention, so let's repeat it...

The preamble of the Constitution Act, 1867 (known until 1982 as the
British North America Act, 1867) says:
"Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick
have expressed their desire to be federally united into One Dominion
under the Crown of the United Kingdom..."

Article 3 of the same act says:
"...The Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall
form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada;..."

Neither of these provisions has ever been repealed (let me remind you
that the 1982 repatriation amended but did not repeal the 1867 act)
so Canada still is a Dominion.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
Xref: sparky can.general:3649 can.politics:5574
From: grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: FLQ (was Re: French/English status after independence)
Date: 29 Jul 92 19:31:16 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <Bs5KyK.3qo@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>In article <28JUL92.10924094.0067@VM1.MCGILL.CA> CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94) writes:
>>In article <12398@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>>>
>>>Why the hell is two isolated murders always given as example of
>>>so-called Quebec nationalism, or violence in Quebec.
>>>
>>*Two* isolated murders?  Laporte and who else?
>>
>>I don't think it's at all true that the FLQ is always given as an
>>"example of so-called Quebec nationalism."  I certainly haven't
>>seen such a tendency in this news group.
>>
>>Tom Box
>>CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
>
>There was someone killed by a bomb in (I think) a mailbox.
>So isolated that you don't remember both events!

A bomb was planted at an armory. A night watchman discovered the
bomb and picked it up. He was killed instantly.

One captured FLQ member when questioned about this said
that the victim was "just another anglais"

A bomb disposal expert was seriously injured when the bomb he
was disarming exploded. This bomb was planted in a mail box
on a residential street.

The above shows the true calibre of the FLQ and their apologists.

















.



















-- 
i.sinature
Xref: sparky can.general:3386 can.politics:5316
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: the new Constitutional Deal
Date: 23 Jul 92 12:39:35 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1410

From article <ph3.711826670@unixg.ubc.ca>, by ph3@unixg.ubc.ca 
 Michael Hamilton writes:-
>
>>  Steve Potter wrote:-
>>
>>  The kind of thinking behind Mr. Hamilton's statement is very very very
>>  dangerous.
> 
>>  I sincerely hope that he did not mean what he appears to have said.
> 
> I meant it. The scenarios you suggest are available to Parliament and the
> legislatures under Canadian law, except possibly the repatriation. I think
> that the Notwithstanding clause allows suspension of mobility rights, but I
> can't remember. Do I mind? No. 

From article <1992Jul22.132351.12970@spxtech.qc.ca> 
I wrote earlier:-

>From article <ph3.711746609@unixg.ubc.ca>, by ph3@unixg.ubc.ca
> Michael Hamilton writes:-
>
>> .... I think it is alright for any culture which feels threatened to
>> impose unconstitutional laws on individuals in order that the culture may
>> survive. ...
>
>  I wonder if Mr. Hamilton would support native indian's efforts in B.C. 
>  to stop logging and hydro projects on their claimed territories? - Land
>  being an important part of native indian culture.
>

  Michael?

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Xref: sparky can.general:3408 can.politics:5349
From: sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: RACISM???/Access to English schools
Date: 23 Jul 92 14:17:37 GMT
	<2A6D75A9.2278@telly.on.ca>
Distribution: can
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal


>>>>> On 22 Jul 92 14:50:16 GMT, evan@telly.on.ca (Evan
Leibovitch) said:

  > In an area where there is a large enough French
  > population to justify its own school, there should be
  > one. Ditto for English in Quebec.

Evan, tell me, what is "large enough" (aka "where number
warrants"). I'm still looking for an explanation, but nobody
will give me one.

If nobody knows what "large enough" is, then I agree that
the ONLY reason why their aren't French schools in certain
area is because the French population is not "large
enough"...

--
  ,                          ,                           ,
Stephane Boucher, ing. jr. | Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca        | Tel: (514)340-5950
sbo@info.polymtl.ca        | Fax: (514)340-4078
From: kam@ic.Berkeley.EDU (Timothy Kam)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: USA IMMIGRATION LOTTERY
Date: 23 Jul 92 07:24:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.14lmroINNkq2
Distribution: can
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: ic.berkeley.edu

Natives of the following countries can participate in a "visa lottery" from
July 29 to August 28, 1992.  The prize of the lottery is a "green card" for
living permanently in the United States.

1 Albania		11 France		21 Liechtenstein
2 Algeria		12 Germany		22 Lithuania
3 Argentina		13 Great Britain	23 Luxembourg
4 Austria		14 Hungary		24 Monaco
5 Belgium		15 Iceland		25 Netherlands
6 Canada		16 Indonesia		26 Norway
7 Czechoslovakia	17 Ireland		27 Poland
8 Denmark		18 Italy		28 San Marino
9 Estonia		19 Japan		29 Sweden
10 Finland		20 Latvia		30 Switzerland
						31 Tunisia

For complete written instructions, send US$2.00 for postage (in cash or 
international money order) to:

	DTC International Services
	194 Farallones Street, Suite B
	San Francisco, CA 94112
	United States of America

P.S. Please do not response to this email address.
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
From: buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland)
Subject: Re: Does Quebec *want* to stay in Canada> (was Re: RACISM???...)
Organization: University of B.C. Computing Services
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:26:48 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.150058.5724@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> ematias@dgp.toronto.edu (Edgar Matias) writes:
>Also, Toronto is not an island.  I'm told Montreal *is* and island.
>Draw your own conclusions...  ;-)
 
 And Quebec is the only large walled city in Canada.  ;-) ;-)
 
>Like I keep telling, YOU DO NOT KNOW THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE MAJORITY
>OF QUEBEC.  NO ONE DOES.  The only way to find out is to have a
>referendum.  

 I've been cooling down on the Quebec debate since I realized -
 hardly the insight of the century, but it took me a while - that
 a lot of participants are claiming "Quebec" status to back their
 own separatist (whether the people want it or not) aims.
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
From: brea9430@mach4.wlu.ca (breadner kenneth cecil joseph u)
Subject: Re: RACISM???/Access to English schools
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 19:46:56 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.234323.11712@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> ematias@dgp.toronto.edu (Edgar Matias) writes:
>
>>It is not the Quebecois that want to stay in Canada, it is Canada that
>>want Quebecois not to leave.  It is then to Canada to make compromises.
> 
>Denis, you crack me up :-).  You keep making outlandish statements like
>these and no one is going to take you seriously any more!  If you actually
>*believe* this, I think we should collectively declare you a
>'distinct society'...
>
>>Except for economical reasons, give me one reason for Quebec to stay in
>>Canada.
>
>That sounds like a pretty damn good reason to me!  Let me paraphrase:
>"Except to stay alive, give me one good reason why I shouldn't shoot 
> myself in the head."  N'est pas?
>
>>Canada just does not know what it is ready to give to Quebec.
>>CSQ has to decide in a one for one basis, not one against 10.
>>...
>>Why is that "united" Canada unable to find something that Quebec will accept?
>
>You have an awfully egocentric view of this country.  Quebec is a PROVINCE.
>As such, if its elected representative want more power, they must
>*negotiate* for that power with the other PROVINCES.
>
>>And personaly, I have 2 parents, not 10. 
>
>What does your parentage have to do with what we are discussing?
>
>Edgar

Sorry, that's my fault. I made an analogy to Quebec being like a little boy
who, in an argument with his parents, suddenly realizes that he isn't going
to get everything his own way, and thus runs and hides. And it's Denis and
people like Denis who make me think this. Nothing against the rest of
Quebec.

Ken
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Labatt "Draft";Molson "Dry" etc
Date: 23 Jul 92 00:43:56 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 2241


    I think I shall be winding down my discussion on the "Access to
    schools" question in the near future. So I think I will pick up
    a new topic to aggravate a different group :-)


    How do Breweries get away with calling a bottled beer "Draft"?
   (Labatt)


    What is the point of drinking a "beer" with "no aftertase"?
   (Molson)


    A brewery was once taken to court over the use of the phrase
    "Real Ale" on its labelling. The brewery lost.

    "Real Ale" is defined in the Oxford English dictionary as an
    Ale made from nothing but Barley, Hops, Yeast and water, naturally 
    conditioned in the container from which it is served.

    That is indeed "Real Ale" and nothing else - is!

    There is sufficient variety in the water types used; the amount
    of roasting given to the grain; the types of yeast; the ratio of
    alpha to beta amalyse in the maltose; the fermentation temperatures
    and the vessels used; the combination of various types of different
    roasted barley grains; and much more to provide for a variety of
    Ales to keep hundreds of brewerys operating in Great Britain.

    In a North American market Beer is made for profit - not flavour,
    tradition or character!  (They are in England too but Real Ale
    lovers know which breweries are doing that - it's obvious as a 
    rule - and they don't drink that stuff -
    - When they have a choice! :-) )

    In the 12 years I have been here I haven't seen one major Canadian
    brewery talk about the ingredients of their "Beer" products in
    their advertising.

    A lot of hype about "traditional" methods that aren't; a lot of
    talk about "new" methods.

    Now they don't even hide it anymore:-

    "Clear", "refreshing", "no aftertaste" or "Cold-filtered".

    Do you know what the difference is between Canadian (read North
    American) "beer" and making love in a canoe?

    [Answere in next posting]

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Xref: sparky can.general:3606 can.politics:5556
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
From: ematias@dgp.toronto.edu (Edgar Matias)
Subject: Re: Does Quebec *want* to stay in Canada> (was Re: RACISM???...)
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Date: 29 Jul 92 16:56:44 GMT


>In article <1992Jul27.234323.11712@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> ematias@dgp.toronto.edu (Edg
ar Matias) writes:
>
>>It is not the Quebecois that want to stay in Canada, it is Canada that
>>want Quebecois not to leave.  It is then to Canada to make compromises.
>
>Denis, you crack me up :-).  You keep making outlandish statements like
>these and no one is going to take you seriously any more!  If you actually
>*believe* this, I think we should collectively declare you a
>'distinct society'...
>

In article <1992Jul29.134507.21935@csi.uottawa.ca>,
pete@aix1.uottawa.ca (Peter Hickey) replies:
>In *my* experience, Denis has hit the nail on the head.  I don't think
>it is an outlandish statement.
>
>English Canada views Quebec as wanting to grab power, while the Quebec
>seems to have no real *desire* to be a part of Canada.

Perhaps Denis has hit his nail on the head.  However, as I keep reminding
him, HE
DOES NOT SPEAK FOR QUEBEC!!  JUST AS I DO NOT SPEAK FOR ONTARIO.  He can
only speak for himself.  As I said in a previous message, if for no
other reason than economic, Quebec must stay in Canada.  With EC countries
give up powers for economic reasons, Denis previous "Aside from economic
reasons, why should Quebec stay in Canada" comment seems, to say the
least, backwards.

Edgar
Xref: sparky can.general:3433 can.politics:5399
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: RACISM???/Access to English schools
Date: 25 Jul 92 14:59:58 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <1992Jul25.014104.7102@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>
>there is no way out of the logic of nationalism.  How could a new
>ethnic state, founded for the purpose of enforcing unilingualism,
>turn around and relax its language regulations? Who would even

While the other parts of the poster are realist, I don't like this part.
Purpose is not to enforce unilingualism, but because we don't feel secure
in Canada.  [1] unilingualism can be enforced inside Canada (CSQ did so
for years), [2] fact of using English as a cultural language and as a
language to communicate with the neighborough countries will improve
position of English (as a second language, not as a communauty I'm
afraid for you) in Quebec.  See the recent posting about the difference
between unilingual anglo born in Montreal and an anglo from USA.

>
>Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com

-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Barthelemy Jarret (1471) -> Andre Jarret, sieur de Beauregard (1665)
\_.-===   -> Denis Beauregard (1992)                  Opinions ? Et pis non !
Newsgroups: can.general
From: kramer@cs.toronto.edu ("Bryan M. Kramer")
Subject: mortage question: blending
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Distribution: can
Date: 28 Jul 92 14:55:44 GMT


My bank is offering early renewals on mortages using a blending formula
that I believe using the weighted average of the rate I'm currently paying
for the remaining part of the term and the current prevailing rate for the
remainder; i.e. for 2 years left at 11.75% then 3 years at 8.87 for a new
five year term
    (2 * 11.75 + 3 * 8.87) = 10.02

A back of the envelope calculation seems to show that the penalty is minimal
(maybe ~200 dollars more interest over 5 years.)

Three questions:
a) is my blending formulat correct?
b) what's in it for the bank? Is my back of the envelope calculation
correct and would a bank do this for a couple of hundred dollars?
c) what are the risks and costs to me? (I know that one is that interest
rates continue to fall... but I could probably renew early again in three
years.)

Thanks

-- 
|Bryan M. Kramer, Ph.D.	      416-978-7330, fax 416-978-1455|
|Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto      |
|6 King's College Road, Room 283E			    |
|Toronto, Ontario, Canada      M5S 1A4                      |
Xref: sparky can.general:3610 can.politics:5561
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: RACISM???/Access to English schools
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:18:19 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 2548

From article <Bs5LwB.3y5@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>, by beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 Denis Beauregard writes:-

> In article <1992Jul28.214239.12911@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter) writes:
>>
>>  I chose to come to Quebec. I did not choose to be treated as a "British
>>  Ethnic" in a racist, intolerant, economically self-destructive .....
>>
> 
> A Rome, on fait comme les Romains...

  Your meaning is not clear.

  I think you are trying to say "Au Quebec, on fait comme les Quebecois";
  meaning "In Quebec, one must do as the Quebecois do"; meaning "Quebec is
  French, so you must live, speak, and behave like a French person."

  This is another attempt to deny the existence of the English community
  in Quebec. 

> 
>>
>>  As Jean Chretien said of Rene Levesque:-
>>
>>   "Of course, Levesque could never accept anything"
>>
>>  How could he?
>>
> 
> Levesque is dead for a few years now.  ANd Quebec is ruled by Liberal Party
> which is basically a federalist party.  So, this kind of argument is
> of no relevance.
> 

  I use Levesque as an example of Quebec nationalist philosophy. Levesque
  couldn't sign without losing his bargaining power. Levesque wanted an
  independent Quebec - he couldn't sign a new constitutional agreement with
  Canada.

  Bourassa rides the waves of public opinion in Quebec - if the majority
  of the population is federalist : Bou Bou is federalist; if the majority
  of the population is nationalist : Bou Bou is nationalist.

  I can not argue with your point that Levesque has been dead for a few
  years now, of course. 

  I think you have a problem though:-

  If you feel that Levesque's position is not a relevant argument because he
  died a few years ago - how can you use the position of the English towards
  the French, long before Levesque died, as a relevant argument?

  You keep on about the conquest of Quebec and the attempts to assimilate
  the French canadians. Those things happened decades or centuries ago. What
  possible justification is that for denying rights from English-speaking
  people in Quebec today?

  Anglo-Quebecois and "new" English Quebecers, like me, are not responsible
  for the "crimes" of the past. Why do you hold us responsible for it?

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Xref: sparky can.general:3388 can.politics:5322
From: charlesv@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Charles Van Duren)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: Interesting facts about bicycles in Ontario (from MoT)
Date: 28 Jul 92 14:56:18 GMT
Distribution: can

howard@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Howard Lem) writes:

#In article <1992Jul27.193509.26974@zooid.guild.org> Mother Nature <gaea@zooid.guild.org> writes:
#>Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
#>
#>Yes, and don't you just love "so called" bicycle paths, the paved parts

[...description of road hazards...]

#As a step in that direction, the government (Municaipal | Provincial) should 
#license ALL bicycles.  The fee need not be large, just enough to cover

Am I showing my age or what? When I was a kid, not sooo long ago, I always
had a licence for my bicycle. It only cost a few bucks. I don't ever
remember being checked for a valid licence, but the principle existed
nonetheless. (This was in Guelph, by the way.)

CvD
Xref: sparky can.general:3519 can.politics:5476