HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: donald@sq.sq.com (Donald Teed)
Subject: Re: The debt
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 00:54:11 GMT

wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith) writes:

>In article <1992Dec16.002004.25480@sq.sq.com> donald@sq.sq.com (Donald Teed) writes:
>>>I'm glad you're not my accountant.  If I deposit $100 in the bank, I'm loaning
>>>the bank $100.  That means I have a $100 asset and the bank has a $100
>>>liability.
>>
>>No that means the bank has your $100 dollars and the bank can now loan out
>>about $1000.  If you didn't know this you have been living in a hole.

>So where does the bank get the additional $900?

You have missed all of the other postings made here?
The bank does not "get" the money.  It creates it.  That
is the whole point of the discussion which has been taking place here.
Money is and has been introduced to the money system mainly by the
creation of loans.  It is only puzzling if you had always believed
money was really worth something in itself, or was backed by some
physical quality or quantity.  The system rides on confidence in
itself.


Xref: sparky can.general:6202 can.politics:11137 talk.politics.animals:10675
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Eating killed animals (was Re: Gun Control Petition)
Date: 2 Jan 93 05:34:27 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA

achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:

>I'm not sure of the reason's for castration of cattle, but I'll bet Dan can
>enlighten us. In some other animals, it is to help control aggression, and
>works rather well.

	This is the primary reason, since aggression sets in about a year
after birth.  Also, testosterone causes the meat to be places on the
body in a different pattern and makes the texture somewhat different.
There is a slight difference in taste, but I don't find it objectionable.

	In any event, the latter reasons give a better price at market,
and the former helps in getting the animals there.  Simple economics.
If I was just keeping them for their first six months or even the first
year and then selling them, I wouldn't bother castrating.  The calving
operations don't bother, since they sell calces to the feedlots at 6mo.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "Are you *SURE* he's worth a Harley-Davidson?" -- my grandmother  >
< to my girlfriend, about me.  "I'd better not say" -- my girlfriend >
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: nrai@nrai.mentorg.com (Nitin Rai)
Subject: Re: Latest evil Canada Post plot
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 04:34:10 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: mentor
Keywords: 
Followup-To: 

In article <BzorIv.MwK@wimsey.bc.ca>, sl@wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec21.055359.16202@xenitec.on.ca> eah@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew) writes:
|> >In article <charles.724433448@menaik> charles@cs.UAlberta.CA (Charles Jobagy) writes:
|> >>And they will perform accordingly.
|> >
|> >Wouldn't the postal Unions have a problem with a combination of
|> >lower pay and coincidental increased performance expectations?
|> 
|> On the other hand, given McDonalds success at increasing productivity with
|> employee motivation and careful design of the workplace, maybe we should 
|> contract with McDonalds for mail movement ;-)
|> 
|> A free Big Mac with every priority post letter you send ...

How about just giving it United States Postal Service. They actually made a
profit this year. At least my mail will take less than 5 days to travel 300 miles.....
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Eating killed animals (was Re: Gun Control Petition)
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 16:10:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.165905.10759@tse.uucp> wayne@tse.uucp (Wayne Hines) writes:
>In article <schuck.725650169@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>>g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>
>
>Let's be reasonable. Comparing cattle castration to human medical treatment
>is inaccurate and distorts Rosemary's argument. Cattle are castrated purely
>for human gain - obviously they have no choice, and it is really not to their
>benefit.  People choose voluntarily to submit to medical procedures, and the
>resulting pain is endured for longer-term benefits.
>
>So *I think* that Rosemary's point still stands unrefuted (by your arguments
>at least).

I'm not sure of the reason's for castration of cattle, but I'll bet Dan can
enlighten us. In some other animals, it is to help control aggression, and
works rather well. For example, on my ex-cats third visit to the vet to sew
up injuries suffered in a cat fight, the vet took my dad in the back room and
showed him a cat that was not expected to live through the night. He'd been 
horribly torn up in a fight with another tom. The vet suggested that if Amos
were not neutered ( a nice word for castration) we could expect the same. Pop
gave him the okay to do the neutering, and he never got mangled again. Lived
to be 17 years old. What I'm getting at is, maybe cattle would also tend to
fight if not neutered? I know that many other herd animals don't normally 
have more than one mature male to a herd of cows.

Jeff Achenbach
Newsgroups: can.general
From: cks@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu (Chris Siebenmann)
Subject: This isn't can.politics
Organization: Ziebmef home away from home
Date: 22 Dec 92 02:56:04 GMT

 Please keep politics in can.politics, don't stick them in can.general.
Our killfiles thank you. Note that if you don't, people aren't going to
read them anyways, and may decide to read nothing that you write in
general; you aren't expanding your audience, and may well be shrinking
it.

--
	"> Email or post, it doesn't matter to me. I'm not
	 > paying for the bandwidth.
	 There it is: a summary of USENET in 14 words."	- Jim Reid
cks@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu	           ...!{utgpu,utzoo,watmath}!utgpu!cks
Newsgroups: can.general
From: buhr@umanitoba.ca (Kevin Andrew Buhr)
Subject: Re: Meat eaters
Organization: University of Manitoba, Canada
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:37:59 GMT

In article <schuck.724481107@sfu.ca> schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce
Jonathan Schuck) writes:
>
>  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.

You're avoiding the issue.  The meat industry is not static: the
public demand for animal food products is a force that encourages the
continued domestication of animals for food purposes.  By eating meat
(even the domesticated cow), you are setting the precedent that using
animals for food is okay.  Hence, there is little moral pressure
against the domestication of fish, the proliferation of game parks,
etc.  Besides which it is not a giant ethical leap from eating cows to
wearing mink, and the mink is not domesticated.

>  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,

Possibly.  Personally, I would rather not live at all than live as
someone's property.  If you feel differently, bully for you.

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

Yes there is an in-between.  You can eat the occasional hamburger,
wear leather shoes, but avoid eating shark steak and wearing arctic
fox coats.  You can also encourage the humane treatment of meat
cattle, to help the industry reality begin to approach the quaint,
idyllic scenes you paint.

Of course, you haven't even started to consider the fabulous
egological inefficiencies you encourage with your meat-eating
behaviour.  This argument can't be dealt with by a "Happy Cow"
theory.

For your information, I eat meat, and I don't fault you for doing so,
but if you really believe the stuff you posted, you haven't taken a
realistic look at the vegetarians' argument.

Kevin <buhr@ccu.UManitoba.CA>
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,talk.politics.animals
From: marc@tanda.isis.org (Marc Thibault)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: Gun Control Petition
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 22:30:14 EST
Reply-To: marc@tanda.isis.org
Distribution: na
Organization: Thibault & Friends

        Gentlefolk,

        If you really want to ban firearms, it is necessary to go
        through the phase we are in now. Your masters know exactly
        what they are doing. One must, at first, leave firearms legal
        but require registration.  This is _not_ too little; it is
        precisely enough!

        If you go straight to the ban, many seemingly law-abiding
        citizens will simply put their guns out of sight, whereas they
        will not object to registration, since (as everybody knows)
        this will keep guns out of the hands of crazy people. Ignore
        the man behind the curtain and the oddness that it's the guns,
        not the people, that are registered.

        Sometime later, we can ban firearms entirely, and the
        registration lists will lead us to a lot of armament that
        would otherwise have remained in the hands of dangerous
        anarchists. Peace, Order, and Good Government, Forever!

        Sleep well,
                        Marc

---
 Marc Thibault        |  Automation Architect        |  The PC: Colt '45
 marc@tanda.isis.org  |  R.R.1, Oxford Mills,        |  of the information
 CIS:71441,2226       |  Ontario, Canada  K0G 1S0    |   frontier
 NC FreeNet: aa185    |                              |

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.0

mQBNAiqxYTkAAAECALfeHYp0yC80s1ScFvJSpj5eSCAO+hihtneFrrn+vuEcSavh
AAUwpIUGyV2N8n+lFTPnnLc42Ms+c8PJUPYKVI8ABRG0I01hcmMgVGhpYmF1bHQg
PG1hcmNAdGFuZGEuaXNpcy5vcmc+
=HLnv
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: meat eaters (was: Re: Gun Control Petition)
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 18:50:28 GMT

paul@sco.COM (Paul Jackson) writes:
>In article <schuck.724456188@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:

>>Eating meat is normal.
>>Killing an animal to eat it is normal.

>Normal, yes. Cruel, yes.

Cruel to eat meat? Nonsense. 

>>
>>Stop promoting vegetarianism as an ethical choice by ethical people as
>>if vegetarians are more *moral*.
>>
>>A truly *ethical* person who wanted to cause no cruelty -- by your
>>definition- would kill themselves and stop competing with animals for
>>food, air and living space.

>My, aren't we an absolutist who sees the world in black and white. It is not
>a matter of being ethical or nor being ethical, it is a spectrum along which
>individuals fall.

No no no. You miss the point. Someone who claims to be *more* eithical
because they don't eat meat are just playing oneupmanship type games.

You are either ethical or you are not. Being a *little* ethical
because you don't kill cows or don't hire someone to kill cows for you
and then turning around and depriving wild animals of food and living
space and clean air by taking it for yourself is hypocrisy.

Polluting the streams and lakes and rivers with your excrement, and
polluting the air with your cars and heating devices such as furnaces
and killing the ozone layer with your refridgerator is *more* 
unethical than killing domesticated animals because the wildlife habitat
you are destrying kills a lot more animals. It kills mice and the bird
that feed on the mice etc etc. Such animals would go on living if
humans would quit trampling on their habitat, while domesticated
animals would have never lived without meat eaters to pay farmers to
raise them.

>Somebody who refuses to kill and eat animals when there is a reasonable
>alternative because they believe that animals also have significant rights
>IS being more ethical in this area than one who doesn't. 

You miss the point again. Vegetarians so-called ethical superiority is
based on convenience. It is inconvenient to be truly ethical so
vegetarians have chosen to be ethical towards domesticated animals and
unethical to wild animals by helping destroy their habitat.

>This does NOT mean
>that somebody who eats meats is an evil scum.

Thats very true.



Newsgroups: can.general
From: gerrys@sun.com (Gerry Singleton - OpCom Consultant)
Subject: Re: Latest evil Canada Post plot
Reply-To: gerrys@sun.com
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:38:28 GMT

Nope. Or should I say I hope not after a small increase in output is better
than the  zero productivity we're obliged to accept now.  

Merry Christmas,
ger (an ex postal worker)
---
--
G. Roderick Singleton, OPCOM Solaris 2.0 Migration Support Centre
{ gerrys@canada.sun.com | gerry@nexus.yorku.ca | gerry@eclectic.uucp }
Voice: 1-800-363-6200 (Canada and U.S.A.)

Newsgroups: can.general
From: dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F)
Subject: Re: The Canadian Problem - How can it be fixed?
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 11:50:28 GMT

In article <13690@grayt> grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) writes:
>
>
>
>How can the trust in the political system be restored. My solution would be to
>end the rigid partysystem in Parliament. Allow individual members the freedom
>to formulate and implement policy. The varous interest groups in the country
>would find that they could influence government actions. Loose alliances would
>form on issues. The public would feel that the government is responsive to
>their concerns. Canada would be seen as a means of advancing their individual
>and group interests. Canada now seems to regarded as an external colonial power
>and the government as acting not in our favour but in favour of the colonizer.
>If something is not done to restore the public faith in the Canadian system,
>Canada will drift apart. 
>

When elections were held in 1867, there was no such thing as parties as we
now know them - people would support Sir John A. or someone else. There were
no party whips, etc. Indeed, look at the British system where Margaret
Thatcher was dethroned by her own party and where there are still large
blocks of MPs who vote against their own party. Trudeau and Mulroney have
taken party discipline too far - because CAnada is a country of
hero-worshippers (we look for the leader we want, not the team we want). I
agree that removing party from parliament to such a great extent is
desirable but cannot be done completely because there are some benefits to
party too. Free votes, regular leadership reviews, etc. ought to be
permitted (and if the caucus can't be free to vote in the leadership
reviews, then maybe the people should. Another way would be to put a term
limit on the PM and Premiers - then they would have to work with the party
if the party was going to remain in power after they left. I like the latter
idea a whole lot.



Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,talk.politics.animals
From: g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh)
Subject: Re: Eating killed animals (was Re: Gun Control Petition)
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: University of Toronto Computing Disciplines Facility
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 01:48:23 GMT

In article <viking.725846832@vincent2.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>In <1992Dec31.165905.10759@tse.uucp> wayne@tse.uucp (Wayne Hines) writes:
>>Let's be reasonable. Comparing cattle castration to human medical treatment
>>is inaccurate and distorts Rosemary's argument. Cattle are castrated purely
>>for human gain - obviously they have no choice, and it is really not to their
>>benefit.  People choose voluntarily to submit to medical procedures, and the
>>resulting pain is endured for longer-term benefits.
>	Try to apply this to circumcision -- penile cancer is way down, but
>I do not recollect anybody asking me if I wanted the procedure done, and
>furthermore there is evidence that it was painful (no anaesthetic used,
>of course).  It is purely cosmetic surgery, painful, and the person
>getting his dainty bits trimmed certainly has no choice in the matter.
>Funny how the double-standard is applied, isn't it?

Well actually Dan, I am opposed to the routine circumcision of baby boys
without their consent and without anesthetic (well, even with anesthetic).
>
>	BTW: the only human gain from castrating cattle is one of meat
>texture; we could just as easily use only artificial insemination and
>selectively strain out the male sperm to get only heifers, but I do not
>see this "solution" has being any more moral than castration.  

Clarification:  it is not castration per se to which I object but rather
the painful methods used.

And even if the meat industry switched to painless methods of castration etc
I would still oppose the killing inherent in it.
-- 
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,talk.politics.animals
From: jalsop@seachg.uucp (John Alsop)
Subject: Re: Better to be slaughtered than never to have lived? Re: Meat eaters (LONG)
Keywords: Meat Vegans vegetarian food
Reply-To: jalsop@seachg.UUCP (John Alsop)
Organization: Sea Change Corporation, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 15:24:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.172603.20369@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>
>..................... For three months at a stretch, pregnant sows are confined
>to stalls scarcely larger than their bodies.  .........
>

If you think this is bad, consider the plight of poor wheat plants.  They
are confined for their entire lives in narrow vertical cylinders of space,
forced to rub constantly against their fellow beings, crowded by the millions 
into rectangular fenced enclosures, exposed to the harsh elements 24 hours a 
day, and just as they give final birth to their offspring, are ruthlessly
cut off at the knees.

Help stop human exploitation of weak and helpless plants. Send your
contribution to "League for Vegetable Rights", c/o address below. (Not
affiliated in any way with Bacterial Liberation Front).


------------
-- 
John Alsop

Sea Change Corporation
6695 Millcreek Drive, Unit 8
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5N 5R8
Tel: 416-542-9484 Fax: 416-542-9479
UUCP: ...!uunet!uunet.ca!seachg!jalsop  jalsop@seachg.com
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,talk.politics.animals
From: matt_d@warp.mhd.montana.edu (Matt Donnelly)
Subject: Re: Eating killed animals (was Re: Gun Control Petition)
Organization: /usr/local/lib/MYORG
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 00:59:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.165905.10759@tse.uucp> wayne@tse.uucp (Wayne Hines) writes:
>In article <schuck.725650169@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>>g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>
>>>A while back I posted excerpts of an article from _Cattleman_ magazine,
>>>a Canadian beef industry journal, in talk.politics.animals.  The article
>>>indicated that both the surgical and elastrator methods of castration caused
>>>some pain.  
>>      ^^^^^
>>
>>
>>Are you *really* implying that any medical procedure that has an
>>element of pain is *abusive*??????
>>
>>Does that mean dentists are *abusive* ?
>>
>>How about nurses when they poke your arm several times trying to find
>>a vein when they need blood?
>>
>>How about any surgical or medical procedure on animals or humans that
>>causes pain? I could list hundreds.
>>
>>According to you and your *book* -- *pain* of any kind is now
>                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>considered abusive. 
>>
>
>Let's be reasonable. Comparing cattle castration to human medical treatment
>is inaccurate and distorts Rosemary's argument. Cattle are castrated purely
>for human gain - obviously they have no choice, and it is really not to their
>benefit.  People choose voluntarily to submit to medical procedures, and the
>resulting pain is endured for longer-term benefits.
>
I have to disagree with Wayne's last statement.  Cattle are castrated,
pigs have their teeth clipped, pigs and sheep are castrated, dogs have
their tails cropped, (etc.) to protect the domestic animals rather than
"purely for human gain".  Given the fact that we confine domestic 
animals, we have to do these things in order to keep them from killing
themselves.  For example, baby pigs will cut each other to bits with
their sharp eye (?) teeth if they aren't clipped.  The pig farmers I
know do this early when the teeth are soft so as not to cause the pig
too much pain.

Cattle are castrated because if they grow up to become bulls, they will
fight each other, run through fences, injure cows, and exhibit 
aggressive behavior that may cause them to hurt themselves.  Given
that calves are sold when they are yearlings and placed in even more
confined feedlots only compounds the problem of _them injuring
themselves_.

It is true that farmers and ranchers receive some benefit from the
practices.  When the livestock are not injuring themselves, they
bring a higher profit to the seller.

Sorry, I won't argue the point of whether they should be confined
in a utopian society.

Matt Donnelly
matt_d@warp.mhd.montana.edu 

Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics