HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: o8vt@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Lacourse)
Subject: Re: Election sun rising
Organization: University of New Brunswick
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 04:00:08 GMT

In article <SBO.92Sep8125057@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca> sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:
>
>"Offert" est un bien grand mot. Les politiciens du Canada
>sont en train d'en passer une vite aux Canadiens et
>Quebecois. C'est la confusion total: 1) le Reform Party est
>contre l'entente, mais ne sais pas trop s'il doit militer
>contre, car ca pourrait etre mauvais pour la cote. 2) le
>Equality Party (du moins les 3 deputes) a decide de se
>ranger du cote du OUI pour ne pas faire campagne avec le PQ,
>etc. On a aussi commence a voir des ecoeuranteris (hmmm)
>comme Canada 125 qui, je suppose, va mettre fin a ces
>activite le lendemain du referendum... Et evidemment, les
>politiciens vont prendre avantage de la lassitude des
>Canadiens et Quebecois. Pour bien paraitre il y aura
>evidemment un peu d'argent gaspiller pour un comite futile
>"charge d'etudier les offres du federal" (du moins au
>Quebec).
>
>L'entente constitutionnel est avant tout une entente entre
>politiciens pour politiciens (c'est a dire pour sauver leurs
>meubles). C'est a peu de choses pres un statu-quo, sauf
>peut-etre pour les autochtones qui ont eu un cheque en
>blanc.
>
>Pour appeler ca un choix offert, il faudrait que le
>referendum ait lieu demain matin et que la question soit:
>"Acceptez-vous l'entente constitutionnel (ref aux textes
>legaux) du 92/xx/xx."
>
>Non, je n'accepterai jamais pareil escroquerie. Je met les
>gens au defi de me faire changer d'idee. Le oui va passe, me
>je ne serai pas a blamer!
>--
>  ,                          ,                           ,
>Stephane Boucher, ing. jr. | Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
>sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca        | Tel: (514)340-5950
>sbo@info.polymtl.ca        | Fax: (514)340-4078

Peut-etre devriez vous reviser un peu votre grammaire Monsieur
Boucher... 

Pierre Lacourse
Universite du Nouveau Brunswick
o8vt@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca 
              
Newsgroups: can.general,soc.culture.canada
From: thood@twitus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: Rheal Nadeau and Thomas Hood chat
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:17:27 GMT
Organization: Matrox Ltd.


Rheal,
I received your test e-letter.  The problem only occurs when I try to mail
to you.

The two letters you sent to hood@matrox.com were "failed" back from matrox to
U of T (since there is no 'hood' here); then U of T bounced the failure
message back to my sysadmin who forwarded it to me.  That problem is now
resolved.

I have sent several mail via rcorsa (I.E. rcorsa!nadeau@bnr.ca) which were
not "failed" back.  Did you receive them?

I sent a mail to you via 'nadeau@x400gate.bnr.ca'.  Did you receive that?

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
Newsgroups: can.general,soc.culture.canada
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Justifications for owning guns?
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 20:17:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.185507.25540@csi.uottawa.ca> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>In article <1992Sep08.143446.10191@xenitec.on.ca> merce@xenitec.on.ca (Jim Mercer) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep8.023007.24210@csi.uottawa.ca> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep07.205612.7601@xenitec.on.ca> merce@xenitec.on.ca (Jim Mercer) writes:
>>>>hand grenades would fall into the same category, there is no justification,
>>>>historical or otherwise, for private ownership of high explosives.
>>>>
>>>NO justification?  In Canada?  I'll bet that there's more private use of
>>>HE in Canada than there is in any other country in the world.  I roomed
>>>with a family in which the husband (who was certainly NOT working for the
>>>government, other than the 60-70% of his income that eventually went to
>>>various gov't agencies...) had considerable quantities of explosive-related
>>>materials.
>>
>>someone who uses HE for business reasons would not really be "private
>>ownership".  i'm talking about people going out and buying HE for
>>entertainment/hobby type uses.  legitimately.
>
>I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the definition of "private
>ownership."  Seeing as how it's probably mostly private companies that
>set up fireworks displays (the primary "entertainment" use of
>explosives), that's another example of what I'd call "private
>ownership."

Hmm, do fireworks count as High Explosives?

Still, the users of fireworks, dynamite, and other similar products are
subject to very strict regulations concerning the purchase, use, and
storage of this stuff.  Just try to buy some TNT...  For the same
reason there are controls on the purchase, use, and storage of guns:
to reduce the chance they'll be used for the wrong purposes.

I can just see it - the NHEA, the National High Explosive Association,
lobbying for deregulation of dynamite...  "Dynamite doesn't blow up
things, people blow up things."  :-)

The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: can.general,soc.culture.canada
From: hamm@weejordy.physics.mun.ca (Craig Hamm)
Subject: Re: Justifications for owning guns?
Organization: Ocean Sciences Centre
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 23:29:26 GMT

In article <1992Sep07.210517.7931@xenitec.on.ca>, merce@xenitec.on.ca (Jim Mercer) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep7.023402.13095@pandora.matrox.com> 
|> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
|> >merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer) writes:
|> >
|> >>Guns don't kill people, criminals kill people.
|> >
|> >      ... often with guns.
|> 
|> often with shotguns, or other rifles not covered by the strict gun control
|> enforced on handguns.
|> 
|> they also use knives, and bats, and tire irons, and their hands.
|> 
|> maybe if we made all firearms covered under the same controls as handguns,
|> things would be safer.
|> 
|> it would piss off alot of hunters, but it would reduce the number of registered
|> weapons.

	Yes, it would reduce the number of REGISTERED weapons.  Think of the
	people hiding and stockpiling guns for the black market.  That's 
	what happens with drugs and prostitution.  I don't condone the
	use of drugs, but look at the mess society is in because it's illegal
	as opposed to controlled.  Most crime is drug related, and guns get
	used because high profits are involved.  

-- 
  
    Craig Hamm, Memorial University, | I don't think the letters which appear
    Newfoundland                     | on your letters page are genuine. I 
    DoD #1500,                       | think you just make them all up.  In
    81 Maxim 650                     | fact you probably made this one up
    ------------                     | too.  -J. Clark, Rotherham (Viz comics)

Xref: sparky can.general:4442 can.politics:6732 soc.culture.canada:6525
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Lower and upper Canadas
Date: 12 Sep 92 17:01:30 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1275

From article <12841@audetf>, by audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet):
> In article <1992Sep10.225000.24555@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
> ]Just because spraying the words "Go Home English Immigrant" on a wall,
> ]or declaring "ALL immigrants must go to French school", is not the same
> ]thing as rounding 'em up for the gas chamber or firing squad doesn't mean
> ]that it is not a racist action.
> 
> The first and the third statement are racists. Not the second.

A discussion on the meaning of the word "racism" again - probably
leading to another flood of references to South Africa & Nazi Germany?

No Thanks. 

I think it is racist, you don't.

Ok.

> 
> ]Is a government denying access to a public service from certain classes
> ]of individuals that is available to other classes of individuals comitting
> ]a racist act?
> 
> NO. If it was, ALL governemnts would be  racist and all unilingual
> people would be as well.

Huh?

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 05:58:32 EDT
From: <REEVESJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: New Constitution text??

There was a two page spread in the Sept 8 issue of the Kingston Whig-Standard (
the local paper in Kingston Ontario).
Newsgroups: can.general
From: marc@meadow.uucp (Marc Riehm)
Subject: Re: It has to go in somebody's back yard.
Reply-To: marc@meadow.UUCP (Marc Riehm)
Organization: Amdahl Canada Ltd., Software Development Center
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 92 13:56:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.025730.23149@bcrka451.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
> [...]
>If nobody wants them, then shouldn't we try to avoid them entirely?
>Shouldn't we focus on producing less garbage, less toxic wastes, less
>of whatever people don't want?  I know - people want all the goodies:
>lots of electricity and toys, disposable this and that; they just don't
>want to pay the full cost of something - heck, just stuff it down
>someone else's throat.  HEY, KEEP THAT STUFF AWAY FROM ME!  But if
>people don't have to deal with the consequences of their own actions,
>why should they behave more responsibly?
> [...]
>The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself

A few weeks ago I talked to some farmers from north of Brampton who live and
farm in an area which is a potential new dump site for the metro Toronto area.

Apparently the NDP government nixed a plan to ship garbage up to an unused
mine shaft in the Sudbury area because they feel that the waste produced by
a region should be disposed of locally in order that the producers of the
waste be exposed to the realities of waste disposal (thus causing them to
think twice about generating undue waste).

One of the farmers made a good, wry remark.  If the idea was to make waste
visible, why not dump it in the unused land near the Gardiner Expressway and
the Skydome and the CN tower?  That way _everyone_ would see it.  After all,
how many Toronto residents would really see the waste if it was dumped north
of Brampton?

But then the farmer (and one other) really surprised me.  There is a big
local battle put on to fight the location of the dump in that region
(presumably there are similar movements in all of the proposed sites).  But
when it comes down to it the farmers don't mind their land being used for a
dump -- they just want to make a lot of money if their site is chosen.  So
the purpose behind the battle is not necessarily to force the site to be
located elsewhere; rather it is to raise the stakes.  That sure shattered
my naive illusions about the farmer and his beloved land.

Of course, this was only the opinion of two farmers from the region.  Hardly
a fair poll.  But it sure gave me pause to think!

-- 
Marc Riehm      Amdahl Canada Ltd., Software Development Center
                2000 Argentia Road, Plaza 2, Suite 300
                Mississauga, Ont.   L5N 1V8
marc@meadow.UUCP
Xref: sparky can.general:4434 can.politics:6712 soc.culture.canada:6502
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Lower and upper Canadas
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:20:54 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <1992Sep10.225000.24555@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
]Just because spraying the words "Go Home English Immigrant" on a wall,
]or declaring "ALL immigrants must go to French school", is not the same
]thing as rounding 'em up for the gas chamber or firing squad doesn't mean
]that it is not a racist action.

The first and the third statement are racists. Not the second.

]Is a government denying access to a public service from certain classes
]of individuals that is available to other classes of individuals comitting
]a racist act?

NO. If it was, ALL governemnts would be  racist and all unilingual
people would be as well.

-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: can.general,soc.culture.canada
From: tdwebste@stylus.uwaterloo.ca (Timothy D. Webster)
Subject: Re: Gun control should be a compromise.
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:31:26 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.121257.3151@cl.cam.ac.uk> iaf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Innes Ferguson) writes:
>tdwebste@stylus.uwaterloo.ca (Timothy D. Webster) writes:

I can easily see how my story appeared barbaric, in the country side
stray dogs forming packs is a major problem. Dog packs have been know
to chase cattle to death. Local villages and towns have bi-laws to
control strays. To make matters worse the dog was in some sort of
frenzy and may have been rabid. Rabies is a problem in this area. Do
you have any idea what kind of horrible disease this is? One time I
was attacked by a rabid ground hog. Not a pleasent experience! 

>
>>P.S. I provided this for those of you who seem to think guns have no
>>legitimate purpose.
>
>"legitimate"? Says bloody who?!

>>P.P.S. It doesn't make sense to ban these semi-automatic rifles. It
>>makes more sense to permanently get rid of the drug dealers who missuse 
>>them.
>
>Yeah, like the latter's easier to do! And like all gun crimes are 
>committed by drug dealers... Wake up and smell the coffee Mr. Wild West.
>
>Innes

My point is humans have no natural enemies other than other people. 
Drug dealers, other criminals, will have guns whether it is legal or not. 
On the rare occassion someone goes on a shooting spree, but even this
is a sign of a sick society. I believe that the moral health of a
society has more effect on the number of murders than anything else. 
Guns only provide one of many way of committing murder.(car, knife,
stick or rock, explosives, hands, arrows, etc)

-Tim.
Newsgroups: can.general,soc.culture.canada
From: merce@xenitec.on.ca (Jim Mercer)
Subject: Re: Justifications for owning guns?
Organization: XeniTec Consulting, Kitchener, Ontario, CANADA
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1992 21:00:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.045127.13773@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com 
(Thomas Hood) writes:
>masonp@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Peter Mason) writes:
>
>>But that wasn't my point.
>>I think the point is that people don't *intentionally* use cars to kill
>>people and for crime.
>
>Cars are designed for driving.  Guns are designed for killing.  That's
>why it's so much easier to say we should restrict guns.

guns are designed for launching a projectile.

guns are restricted.

a friend pointed this out to me:

banning guns will probably have the same effect as the illegality of street
drugs as far as crime.

NIL.

-- 
[ 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,soc.culture.canada
From: tdwebste@stylus.uwaterloo.ca (Timothy D. Webster)
Subject: Re: Tragedy at concordia and a net-proposal to prevent furthur incidents
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 21:57:20 GMT

>baffles me.  What exactly are hand guns designed for?  Shooting
>people.
>
>Peter

Some people myself included consider target shooting at a gun club no
more violent than gulfing. I also believe all types of guns should be
allow for this type of target shooting provided the gun clubs only allow 
hunting guns out.


-Tim.

Newsgroups: can.general,soc.culture.canada
From: merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer)
Subject: Re: Tragedy at concordia and a net-proposal to prevent furthur incidents
Organization: Ed (the iguana) Memorial Society
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 92 23:56:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep5.022338.2409@bcrka451.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>In article <Bu2qBL.GFA@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> tdwebste@stylus.uwaterloo.ca (Timothy D. Webster) writes:
>>
>>Some people myself included consider target shooting at a gun club no
>>more violent than gulfing.
>
>However peaceful and law-abiding most gun owners/users may be (and I
>agree most are) you cannot simply dismiss the occasional acts of
>violence - you can't dismiss 3 dead and 2 injured as statistically
>insignificant.  (Now, if the guns WERE restricted to the grounds of the
>club.  But people would still get permits to go to shooting contests,
>right?  And shooting clubs would become prime targets of thieves -
>they'd need security systems worthy of banks.)

3 dead and 2 injured is pretty small compared to the carnage on our nations
highways.

i would say if you compared the number of accidental shootings, and intentional
ones committed with registered weapons, to the number of casualties inflicted
by private automobiles, and alchol, you will see my reasoning.

i would not include the shooting deaths of those killed by non-registered
weapons, as those numbers would not change at all, even with a total ban on
firearms.

>Just a question, though.  Why is target shooting with a handgun more
>fun that with a rifle, or a bow, or a crossbow, or a relatively
>harmless air-gun?  Isn't the whole point of a sport the challenge, and
>aren't these alternatives just as challenging?  (Not a flame, I really
>want to know.)

getting five out of five with a rifle is generally more easy than with a
handgun.

as to the calibre/size of the gun, to each his own.

if high speed driving is more dangerous than following the speed limit, why
are people allowed to buy Ferrai's, which can almost triple the speed
limit of most highways?

-- 
[ Jim Mercer   Reptilian Research  merce@iguana.reptiles.org  +1 519 893-6085 ]
[   "Like a pump in a fish tank, we keep new things coming in so old things   ]
[    don't die." -- Archie McPhee Catalog                                     ]
Xref: sparky can.general:4454 misc.test:10778
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.general,misc.test
Subject: Re: Rheal Nadeau and Thomas Hood chat
Date: 14 Sep 92 21:22:26 GMT
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:

>Please follow up on misc.test only.

Uh-oh.  I find I cannot post to that newsgroup, so for simplicity's
sake, just post here. :-(

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
Newsgroups: can.general
From: masonp@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Peter Mason)
Subject: Re: Justifications for owning guns?
Organization: Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, McMaster University
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 14:59:43 GMT

In article <3247@isgtec.isgtec.com> robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne) writes:
>masonp@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Peter Mason) writes:
>> [A great deal of supposition and biased opinion presented as fact.]
>
>You either know very little about gun control issues or are lying
>to further your rather obvious agenda.

Not very nice.  The other way to look at this is that perhaps I do
know about gun control and also have my own opinions.

>These issues are discussed in great depth in talk.politics.guns.
>I would suggest that anyone interested read that group for a while.
>
This is a good suggestion.

peace,


Peter
-- 
Peter Mason
masonp@nukie.physics.mcmaster.ca
Hamilton, Ontario (ack! pfffthpt!), Canada
-displaced Nova Scotian
Newsgroups: can.general
From: amdunn@mongrel.UUCP (Andrew M. Dunn)
Subject: Re: It has to go in somebody's back yard.
Organization: A. Dunn Systems Corporation, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 16:25:52 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.135612.6494@meadow.uucp> marc@meadow.UUCP (Marc Riehm) writes:
>But then the farmer (and one other) really surprised me.  There is a big
>local battle put on to fight the location of the dump in that region
>(presumably there are similar movements in all of the proposed sites).  But
>when it comes down to it the farmers don't mind their land being used for a
>dump -- they just want to make a lot of money if their site is chosen.  So
>the purpose behind the battle is not necessarily to force the site to be
>located elsewhere; rather it is to raise the stakes.  That sure shattered
>my naive illusions about the farmer and his beloved land.


Doesn't surprise me.  Farmers in near-dump areas have two choices:

  (1) Accept the dump, and lose the value of their land that they've
      built up over the years and plan to retire on (face it, land
      next to a dump is worth A LOT less).

  (2) Fight it and hang on to their equity.  Whether they get the
      dump moved and hang on to the land value, or get bought out at
      a good price, doesn't really matter.

I drive through the land these farmers are on at least twice a week.
It's good land, good countryside, and a number of houses and small
villages.

All of which would be worth significantly less with a dump in the
area.

Andy

-- 
:-------------------------------------------------------------------------:
:  Andy Dunn (amdunn@mongrel.uucp)  ({uunet...}!xenitec!mongrel!amdunn)   :
:  "AT&T thinks Usenet is an Underground organization" - are we really?   :
:-------------------------------------------------------------------------:
Newsgroups: can.general
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Re: Presorting of mail at dropping points.
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 20:26:32 GMT

In <1992Aug14.174026.3593@bcrka451.bnr.ca> janick@bcrkd13.bnr.ca (Janick Bergeron) writes:

>Last time I went back home in Chicoutimi, I noticed that Canada Post
>had installed 2 mailboxes wherever there used to be only one. One was
>labelel "Local mail only" (and listing the postal code prefixes which
>indicated "local mail") and the other mailboxe was labeled "All other
>mail".

>Is Canada Post testing point-of-collection presorting (like they do in
>Europe) ? The Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean region has always been know for

About seven years ago, the place in Winnipeg I always used to drop my
mail at, had two mail boxes, one marked local, the other marked
international, national and other. One day, there was only one
mailbox. Ever since, there's only been one mailbox.

That's the long way of saying: I dunno.

Point of collection sorting has obviously been tried elsewhere, but my
impression was that p-o-c sorting was the norm for a long time, and
its only recently that its been changed.

Michael
Xref: sparky can.general:4341 soc.culture.canada:6351
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.general,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Justifications for owning guns?
Date: 7 Sep 92 04:51:27 GMT
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

masonp@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Peter Mason) writes:

>But that wasn't my point.
>I think the point is that people don't *intentionally* use cars to kill
>people and for crime.

Cars are designed for driving.  Guns are designed for killing.  That's
why it's so much easier to say we should restrict guns.

>peace,

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
Newsgroups: can.general,soc.culture.canada