HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh)
Subject: Re: Gun Control Petition
Organization: University of Toronto Computing Disciplines Facility
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 01:09:22 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.234813.10888@xenitec.on.ca> merce@xenitec.on.ca (Jim Mercer) writes:
>please don't be absurd.
>devote macrobiotics make up a very minute percentage of the world population.
>(very, very minute as our friends on the Kraft Mayonnaise commercial would say)
>
I am hardly an advocate of macrobiotics, they sometimes eat killed fish!

>hunting and keeping livestock would only be of questionable legitimacy if
>we had food generators like on star trek.
>
We could eat the grain and soybeans which are fed to livestock.  Surely
most people have heard by now the statistics:  n kgs of grain to produce
1 kg of meat, where n is significantly greater than 1.

>until then, you will find a need for meat and other livestock products.
>a need, not a desire, as converting one's system to a diet entirely
>independant of the exploitation of animals is not something everyone can do.

Very very few Canadians are in a position where they must eat meat.
-- 
Rosemary Waigh             Undergraduate, Computer Science / Linguistics
g9rwaigh@cdf.utoronto.ca   University of Toronto
	"Looking at the Earth from afar you realize it is too small
	for conflict and just big enough for co-operation."  Yuri Gagarin
Newsgroups: can.general,rec.food.veg
From: merce@xenitec.on.ca (Jim Mercer)
Subject: Re: meat eaters (was: Re: Gun Control Petition)
Organization: XeniTec Consulting, Kitchener, Ontario, CANADA
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 04:57:09 GMT

[ another redirect, geez, rosemary, how many groups do you read? ]

In article g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>In article myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:
>>That's why I highly encourage you all to go read the literature on what
>>is a PROPER vegetarian diet. You may want to include some shellfish in
>>there if you want. 
>
>Of course, if you eat shellfish or other animals you are not a vegetarian.

maybe by your definition.

i know of a number of vegetarians who have small anomalies in their diet,
like eggs, or shellfish or fish.

god, you are really coming across as a zealot.

do you really take yourself this seriously, or are you really that big of a
twit?

does anyone, other than yourself, meet your high goals of non-cruelty?

-- 
[ Jim Mercer   Reptilian Research  merce@iguana.reptiles.org  +1 519 893-6085 ]
[             I don't want to work for a company that has a CIO.              ]
[              Disclaimer! I don't need no stinking Disclaimer!               ]
Newsgroups: can.general,rec.food.veg
From: g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh)
Subject: Re: meat eaters (was: Re: Gun Control Petition)
Followup-To: rec.food.veg
Organization: University of Toronto Computing Disciplines Facility
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 02:55:29 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.020659.17052@bmerh85.bnr.ca> myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:
>If your vegetarian diet is carefully balanced, meaning, you do NOT
>simply stop eating meat and the rest of your diet remains the same,
>except in larger quantities, then you do get all the protein you need.
>
I think people tend to be overly pessimistic about vegetarian diets, using
qualifiers like, *if you're careful*.  But meat-eaters need to eat balanced
diets too!  I don't think planning a balanced vegetarian diet is inherently
more difficult than planning a balanced meat-eating diet.  In some respects
one could argue it is easier, for meat-eaters must make a special effort to
avoid excess fat, and to get enough fibre.

>That's why I highly encourage you all to go read the literature on what
>is a PROPER vegetarian diet. You may want to include some shellfish in
>there if you want. 

Of course, if you eat shellfish or other animals you are not a vegetarian.
-- 
Rosemary Waigh             Undergraduate, Computer Science / Linguistics
g9rwaigh@cdf.utoronto.ca   University of Toronto
	"Looking at the Earth from afar you realize it is too small
	for conflict and just big enough for co-operation."  Yuri Gagarin
Xref: sparky can.general:6083 can.politics:10939
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re:  Gun Control Petition
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 09:28:11 PST
Distribution: can
Organization: Robert Smits

rickie@trickie.UUCP (Richard Nash) writes:

> In article <w2JoVB1w164w@ham.almanac.bc.ca> emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
> >hohm@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Brian Hohm) writes:
> >
> >> Guns have no purpose other than to kill people.  I'm tired of reading
> >> that they have a politicly stablizing effect.  
> >> 
> >
> >
> >Your assertion that guns have no other purpose than to kill people is a 
> >bald-faced LIE. I'm tired of reading half-baked propaganda from the Walt 
> >Disney School that equates every use of a gun with killing people, thus 
> >ignoring all the entirely legitimate uses of guns - including, but not 
> >limited to, hunting, competitive shooting, protection of livestock, 
> >protection from wild animals, etc.
>                  ^----------^
>                       |- since when can you or I lug around a gun in the
>                          National Parks to protect ourselves from wild
>                          animals?
>                        - Elsewhere is no problem to have a gun,  but where
>                          there are the most wildest and dangerous animals,
>                          no way!  You are potential food for the bears!

Who said anything about National Parks? There are lots of situations - 
miners, oil exploration workers, forest service workers, etc, who live 
and work in remote areas where wild animals - grizzlies, cougars, etc are 
still a real threat. 

> Is a gun really necessary for survival in our environment today?

On occasion, yes. It may not be nearly as necessary in Edmonton as in 
Northern B.C., I'll grant you. But please stop interpolating city life in 
Edmonton as the norm in rural Canada.

> Is pleasure killing a justification for the production and legalized
> distribution of guns?
> >

And who said anything about killing for pleasure? Do YOU take pleasure 
out of knowing some poor cow has died for your hamburger patty? Of course 
not. It's just a fact of life that animals must die if people eat, and we 
do, animal protein. The fact that hunters kill their own animal protein, 
and most people pay others to do it for them doesn't make a hunter 
someone who particularly enjoys killing. 

> >Yes, gun use must be regulated and responsible, but the use of guns is 
> >entirely legitimate and even necessary for many people. The issue of 
> >proper gun use is NOT simple or a black and white issue as you suggest.
> --

Please reread the last paragraph.

>  
> 
> 


emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca  (Robert Smits, Ladysmith B.C.)

Support your fellow Canadians. We should buy lousy Canadian novels 
instead of importing lousy American novels. - Johnny Wayne
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: 4224_5201@uwovax.uwo.ca (John LaRocque)
Subject: Re: Kommunist Kanada 
Organization: University of Western Ont, London
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 01:17:13 GMT

In article <1g9c8jINNp5g@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>, stevec@unixg.ubc.ca (Steve Cumming) writes:
> 
> Have you, other than in your dreams, ever met a real communist? 
> Have you ever read the Communist Manifesto? 

Idealistic junk for people who want something for nothing...

> Have you read <anything>
> by Marx, Engles, or Lenin? Have you any familiarity with
> more recent writings by left or marxist thinkers?
> Have you the slightest idea what you are talking about?

I got a good part of the Karl Marx library at home which I got REAL
cheap at the book store. There is this one volume " The German Ideology"
where Marx trashes fave philospher Max Stirner (author, The Ego And HIs
Own" , but still considers him the only serious alternative to Marxism

As for the commies, I could tell you why Yugo communish was/is worse/better
than the bad "revionist" communism a la Kruschev or why Chairman Mao was
the only real communist. (BTW Jean Paul Sartre was a Maoist).I still remember
this discussion years ago in grade six where they pushed all that commie
crap about China and what a wonderful system it was. This was in the 70's,
ten years after the Cultural Revolution and 20 years after all those commie
Liberals in North America thought of Mao as some kind of savior.These
commies also thought the same about pre-1945 Stalin. I have access to
propaganda from the period from so-called democrats - scum - who praised
Stalin as a nationalist and talked about his noble opposition to Hitler.
And then there was all those Liberal commies who went nuts over Lenin.
Silly Liberals.... 

As for having met communists, there is this chap at the University of Western
Ontario who is a professional communist. I attended one of his lectures
on the glories of Albanian communism and why other versions of communism
were rubbish. Fun guy. Also heads up the club that wants to slaughter our
good psychology prof Phillippe Rushton (re race/penis size and "racism").
He was at this one rally and said that there was an evil right wing
Nazi conspiracy - and everyone was part of it : the US government, neo-
Nazis, "holocaust deniers", bussinessman and academics. You name it, he
will add them on his list. Wotta guy.

BTW Do you know what you're talking about?


> 
> --
> Steve Cumming		 boreal mixedwood dynamics and rogue
> stevec@geog.ubc.ca				    ... how long you got left?
> 						    well how long do you reckon?
> 							
-- 

John P. LaRocque
vader@uwo.ca
University of Western Ontario
London, Ontario


"Urk..urk..."
"Apology accepted, Captain Nida", Darth Vader
Newsgroups: can.general
From: morton@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Brent Morton)
Subject: Re: Herbivory (was Re: Gun Control Petition)
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 05:32:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.040819.26005@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>Do you know anyone who has tried?  Boatloads of studies of vegans (human
>herbivores) have been done, check it out at your local medical library.
>Dr Gill Langley's book _Vegan_Nutrition:_A_Survey_of_Research_ has references
>to many of these studies.

I don't think the question is 'Can people survive by being vegetarians?' We
all know that that's true. What disturbs me is that people would become
vegetarians because they don't think the human race should cultivate animals
as we cultivate plants.

>Would you also say, since human beings are just animals, there is no moral
>difference between a human killing and eating her own child, and a squirrel
>killing and eating her own child?  Since your argument can be used to 
>justify murder, I think it is seriously flawed.

I think not. If, to use your analogy, it were normal behaviour for a squirrel
to eat its offspring, it is still impossible to draw any parallels between
that behaviour and humans. It's not natural behaviour for us to kill and eat
our children. It is, however, natural behaviour for us to kill other animals
to eat. Humans have been doing it for millenia. The recent interest in
vegetarianism is due to the fact that it is now possible to survive without
eating meat, whereas even in the relatively recent past it was not.

-- Brent
morton@artifis.gaul.csd.uwo.ca

Newsgroups: can.general
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Meat eaters
Keywords: Meat Vegans vegetarian food
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 04:45:07 GMT

leffler@physics.ubc.ca (Steve Leffler ) writes:

>   Has it occurred to anyone that if everyone gave up eating meat, certain 
>domesticated species of animal--particularly cows and chickens--would very
>rapidly become endangered species?  These animals have been modified far too
>much by selective breeding to survive in the wild now.

Thats an interesting point. If everyone gave up eating beef tomorrow,
all the beef farmers/ranchers would kill their herd off within a
matter of days because they aren't into keeping cattle as pets.

I ask the vegetarians out there:

Is it better to have never lived at all, never to have chewed grass
and dropped cow patties all over the place under a clear blue sky,
never to have got it on with another cow/bull, never sucked milk from
it's mothers teat, never ran as fast as a cows four legs can run,
and never been born,

or is it better to have done all those things, and more , even in a
shortened life and end up as a steak on my plate?

I ask those questions, because thats the choice, there is no inbetween.

Or, in a shortened version: 

Is it better to have lived and lost , ending up as
steak tartare , than to have never lived at all?

Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
From: tjdoran@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (TJ Doran)
Subject: Re: Monetary "theory"
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:19:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.071207.20954@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <BzE17K.K8o@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> tjdoran@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (DORAN TJ - BIOLOGY) writes:
>>
>>There are economists who feel that faith is the *only* deciding factor in
>>our economic setup. It takes faith in the future to borrow money, and 
>>borrowing money is the fuel of our system.
>>
>>Too bad the Tories can't generate faith that things are looking up.   
>>
>
>But the fact remains that the international money markets probably
>have significantly greater trust in the Tories, than they would
>in the Liberals...(and forget about the NDP).  As an election 
>nears and the international markets begin noticing the poll numbers
>and the utter nonsense that spews from Jean Chretien and his leading
>finance critic Herb Gray...we should be prepared for another roller
>coaster ride like we had during the referendum.
>
>Gerald

But what is more important? The opinions of Canadians on the future of Canada
or the opinion of foreigners? It seems to me (speculation) that Canadian
employers, and their confidence in the economy have a greater effect on our 
economy than do foreign speculators.

I have no more faith in Chretien than you do, and even less faith in the 
NDP. I am still voting against the Tories, however, beacause they haven't
managed to do anything right in 8 years.


-- 
TJ Doran  	              |"There you stand like a duck in a thunderstorm
TJDORAN@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca | again... Aren't you ever going to understand?" 
                              |                         - W.A. Mozart
Newsgroups: can.general,can.jobs,tor.general,ott.general
From: joel@math.toronto.edu (Joel Chan)
Subject: Re: Hong Kong Employment Interest Survey
Organization: Department of Mathematics, University of Toronto
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 18:23:07 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.072712.2013@netcom.com> bri@netcom.com (Business Research Int'l) writes:
>
>The following is a marketing survey for a new international employment 
>publication with an emphasis on employment in Hong Kong.  If you are 
>interested in working in Hong Kong or the Asia Pacific region, please
>spend a few minutes to fill out the survey below.  Qualified individuals
>will receive complementary copies of the employment guide when available.
>[Long survey deleted]
>
>                                Business Research International
>                                P.O. Box 3721
>                                Santa Clara, California 95055
>                                (Email: bri@netcom.com)

Umm, hello... not to be fussy or anything, but what is a survey like this
in this newsgroup here for?  Aren't posts for commercial purposes not allowed?

Whatever it is, it sounds real fishy.

Joel
-- 
Joel Chan, Department of Mathematics	  	 joel@math.toronto.edu
Toronto Blue Jays: 1992 World Series Champions
"History: Those who ignore it are condemned to repeat it.  Math, too."
				    -From the comic strip "Betty"
Xref: sparky can.general:6100 can.politics:10959 talk.politics.animals:10465
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Eating killed animals (was Re: Gun Control Petition)
Date: 20 Dec 92 18:53:57 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada

viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:

>>And the poster who wrote an idyllic fantasy about the lives lead by beef
>>cattle doesn't?  I think once more people find out what really is going on
>>on farms and how unnecessary eating meat is, meat consumption will decline
>>even further.

>	It might, Rosemany, but your posts certainly aren't informing people
>of what is "really" going on.  Strange thing, that.

Please be specific, Dan Sorenson.
Which part of Rosemary's post is misleading?

Your arguments about how the farmer will only grow what's profitable
is obvious, and is no more than a bunch of motherhood statements that
really do not tell me anything new either. Both you and I grew up in
a capitalist society, so you certainly don't need to lecture me on how
things work in this system.

>	I grew up on a farm outside Woodbine, Iowa, population ~1000; I am in
>the middle of farm and cattle country, and I have *never* seen what you
>regurgitate in these posts.  I also left the farm for an education, and have
>no desire to return to farming in any way or form, so I've no vested interest.

Be specific, please. Tell us what you saw, not what you didn't see.
Tell us how the cattle were castrated, then. Tell us whether they had
their horns removed, and how. You may not have seen the exact method
described by Rosemary used with your own eyes. Tell us what methods you
did see used, to achieve the same end result then.

You'd be more convincing if you refuted Rosemary's argument point by
point like this:

      Rosemary: I learned that this method was used to achieve this.
      Dan:      I saw this alternate method used to achieve the same.

OK? Now, please post another follow-up that's more substantive to your
present one. Thank you.
Newsgroups: can.general,rec.food.veg
From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: meat eaters (was: Re: Gun Control Petition)
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:09:25 GMT

james.w.lacey writes:

>>someone said (was it not you?) "i am a vegetarian, but i add shellfish in
>>for balance".
>>
>>she said you eat shellfish, therefore you are not a vegetarian.
>>
>>this is similar to saying you can't possibly be catholic, you had premarital
>>sex.
>>

>I believe a better analogy is a vegetarian who eats fish (or other
>flesh) now and then is like a person who takes a vow of celibacy
>and only has sex now and then.


Good analogy, but tell me, could such a person who only has sex 
now and then be called a "semi-celibate"?  Or maybe a "celibate most of
the time" or an "almost celebate"?  ;-)  :-)

Anyway, maybe we shouldn't be too precisarian about the term
"vegetarian", although it does make it difficult for the complete
vegetarian when confusion abounds.  Maybe for exactitude, when needed,
terms like "pico-vegetarian" or "semi-vegetarian" are helpful and
acceptable.  Many people do become complete vegetarians by first
starting off as a "semi-vegetarian", then a pico-vegetarian,
and then finally arrive to a complete vegetarian practice.  Indeed,
Dr. Klaper even suggests that about 10% of people who have been heavy
meat consumers during their formative years and many years after do
need to make the transition gradually rather than abruptly.  It 
need not be a all or none thing, but for some it must be a "semi"
kind of thing, at least for some "semi-periodi" of time   ;-)

				Cheers,

				    ted
Newsgroups: can.general,can.jobs,tor.general,ott.general
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Gun Control Petition
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 16:08:38 GMT

rickie@trickie.UUCP (Richard Nash) writes:

>In article <w2JoVB1w164w@ham.almanac.bc.ca> emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>>
>>Your assertion that guns have no other purpose than to kill people is a 
>>bald-faced LIE. I'm tired of reading half-baked propaganda from the Walt 
>>Disney School that equates every use of a gun with killing people, thus 
>>ignoring all the entirely legitimate uses of guns - including, but not 
>>limited to, hunting, competitive shooting, protection of livestock, 
>>protection from wild animals, etc.
>                 ^----------^
>                      |- since when can you or I lug around a gun in the
>                         National Parks to protect ourselves from wild
>                         animals?
>                       - Elsewhere is no problem to have a gun,  but where
>                         there are the most wildest and dangerous animals,
>                         no way!  You are potential food for the bears!
>Is a gun really necessary for survival in our environment today?

This spring/summer on Vancouver Island, the cougar problem was very
serious, and at least one teacher had to rescue a young student from
the jaws of a cougar. A gun -- if she knew how to use it -- would have
been very helpful.

BC is *not* downtown Toronto.

Hell, I encountered coyotes walking up Burnaby Mountain to SFU in
the early 80's several times.

All over BC, wildlife is very accessible and can come wandering
through your front yard at any time. Not every day, but it can happen.



Newsgroups: can.general,can.jobs,tor.general,ott.general
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Hong Kong Employment Interest Survey
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 04:57:45 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Dec12.182307.22472@math.toronto.edu> joel@math.toronto.edu (Joel Chan) writes:
>>The following is a marketing survey for a new international employment 
>>publication with an emphasis on employment in Hong Kong...
>
>Umm, hello... not to be fussy or anything, but what is a survey like this
>in this newsgroup here for?  Aren't posts for commercial purposes not allowed?

There is no formal restriction of that sort in Usenet news groups (despite
popular misconception).  Certainly not in can.jobs, where people with openly
commercial purposes post all the time.

However, blatant hucksterism is in poor taste, especially when cross-posted
all over the landscape.  Send them nasty mail so they won't do it again.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: can.general,ns.general
From: gillisad@newton.ccs.tuns.ca (Allan D. Gillis)
Subject: Re: Lead news stories...
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 13:21:10 GMT
Distribution: can,ns
Organization: Technical University of Nova Scotia, Halifax, N.S.



So what was Henry VIII doing on the throne?  I thought he invented divorce, and
he was allowed to stick around.

-Allan

Xref: sparky can.general:6021 can.politics:10822