HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: james@cs.UAlberta.CA (James Borynec; AGT Researcher)
Subject: Re: I was going to vote yes, BUT NOW ....
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 04:09:04 GMT

marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:

>You're right.  I should learn to take more care how I say things.  I have
>presented in other postings evidence that leads me to believe that Quebec
>might well fall to 20% of Canada's population by the middle of the next
>century.

I tend to agree with Mark on most issues.  However,  I must say that
this whole 25% floor is something of a red herring.  (or perhaps an
uncashed cheque).  My inclination is to let the folks of the mid 21st
century worry about THEIR political problems and let us worry about
OUR political problems.  The question is whether the proposed deal is
a good deal for the Canada of 1992?  (I haven't made up my mind).

Besides, POWER (which is the REAL issue) doesn't flow from just
representation.  Any doubts can be dispelled by looking at
California and Alaskan Senators.  They both have two of them, but there
is no doubt as to who is 'more' equal than the other.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY)
Subject: Re: Mike Godfrey
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:45:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.133121.6157@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA>, bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes...
>godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY) writes:
>: 
>: 
>: I feel sorry for poor Mike Godfrey, who people keep confusing with me.
>: I (Laurence) am the "idiot" who loathes Canada, Mike is the person who
>: seems to like it over there.  As far as I know, neither of us is an American,
>: though i frequently wish I were.  I do not think we are related.
>: 
>: Laurence
> 
> 
>Aha! A classic case of multiple personalities!
> 
>There's the benevolent Mike, who likes Canada and babies.
>And there's the domineering, evil Laurence, who hates Canada, babies,
>and believes that there's a world-wide plot by scientific grant agencies
>to kill him.
> 
> 
>-- 
>Brian Ross                         "I fell into some ice and your scientists 
>bross@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca     thawed me! Your modern world frightens and
>                                    confuses me!" -- Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer

Do you think that might be it?  That we are really one in the same person
but each is unaware of being the other?  I hope not for Mike's sake, because
he certainly wouldn't like to receive my email postbag!

Actually i rather like babies, and have never had a problem with any 
scientific grant agencies.  Your ludicrous National Research Council, with
which i had a problem, were my employers not a grant agency.

Laurence

Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Subject: Re: I was going to vote yes, BUT NOW ....
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:35:02 GMT

In article <Xx5-5gC@engin.umich.edu> marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>The 18 extra Members (that come with the Cha'town accord) _immediately_
>bias slightly the HoC (six seats, three times as much as any other
>province).  The 25% rule will eventually bias the HoC _enormously_
>(twenty seats, ten times any current province's benefit from mal-
>distribution).  

The new 18 MP will bias with what % compared to the 18 missing MP
in the current HoC?

Moreover, the _eventual_ 20 seats will compensate the previous bias
francophones suffered for years.  Anyway, I think the whole system
should be revised (i.e. no more Senate, at least asymmetrical federalism,
no more Queen, much less M.P., integrating all maritimes into one province,
reduction of Quebec M.P. proportionally to more power Quebec will get
after the next negotiation [because NO will probably make it and only
a major change will be acceptable the next time, no more make up], etc.).

-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Ge'ne'alogiste des familles : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Un Que'bec renouvele' dans une Ame'rique renove'e
\_.-===  Une entente au contenu insatisfaisant!     Mon opinion ? Non !
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: choy@skorpio.usask.ca (I am a terminator.)
Subject: Why do we need a referendum?
Organization: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:18:29 GMT

What is the matter with people? We elect a government that cannot
even decide what to do for us. They would have us think for them.
They've gone and made something, but they haven't got the know how
to tell if it's going to work. But they do have the know how to
try to convince us that it's going to work, and to try to convince
us before they even tell us what it is.

What is the issue that we are trying to resolve? I don't mean
whether the Charlottetown Accord is agreeable, but what is the
fundamental problem here?

Why do we have to vote on something where about half the people want
to say yes and the other half want to say no? What the heck would
a small majority mean anyway? It would show that there's still a lot
of discontent. I think it's time to go back to the drawing board.
What issues are making the whole thing fall apart?

It's really freaky the way that numbers are being proposed. The precise
percentage of seats is spelled out. Where is there such incredible
precision? I would maybe see it in measuring the gas to fill a tank,
but there should be more room to move.

How can the common man on the street help make the decision? The
government has records and can give reasons for making a decision,
but there are far too many variables for you and I to tell whether
Yes works or No works. The government has not been looking closely
enough at the situation and are far too interested in just getting
another term in office. Canada does not have such great social
problems that so much haggling should go on.

Henry Choy
choy@cs.usask.ca
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: geog421@matai.vuw.ac.nz
Subject: To all Edmontonians
Expires: Mon, 26 Oct 1992 09:38:58 GMT
Summary: Tracking down a friend
Reply-To: geog421@matai.vuw.ac.nz
Organization: 	Victoria University of Wellington,  NZ
Keywords: Hunting
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 07:37:25 GMT

Could an Edmontonian please contact me, I'm trying to contact a friend of mine
travelling in Canada.

Cheers from down under....
From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: What about the Canadians?
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:10:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bw6LHG.F7y.1
	<BvyuqA.MCo@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca> <Bw65Fv.Jyp@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: clamen@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <Bw65Fv.Jyp@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:

   I talked to someone in the army this summer and there is currently a
   Quebec army.  That is, the Canadian army is already working with
   a separate body with the Quebec soldiers.  

That is interesting, because I saw Gen. Mackenzie on television a
couple of days ago and he made no mention of this.  In fact, he went
somewhat the other way.  When the Croatian President was comparing the
"constitutional crises" in ex-Yugoslavia and Canada, Mackenzie pointed
to his 450 Anglophone/500 Francophone unit.

--
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
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Subject: Re: What if it's No-No?
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 23:03:11 GMT

In article <BvvF4y.90L.1@cs.cmu.edu> clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>
>CSQ  NO - Quebec NO: People will put the constitution on the back
>		     burner for a while, but the next round would
>		     see Quebec demanding status as an autonomous
>		     region, or as an independent country.
>
>Also, I am ignorant as to what Mulroney will do if a province other
>than Quebec (ie. BC) votes against.  (If I remember correctly, the BC
>Government is bound by the results of the vote.)  
>
>A lot of the agreement can be passed under the 7/50 rule, but has
>Mulroney said anything about pushing things through without unanimous
>consent?
>
>
>
Mulroney declared in a first time that a 50%+1 vote was enough.
He later said that it should 50%+1 everywhere.  No idea what he
will say after the campaign.

>
>--
>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


-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Ge'ne'alogiste des familles : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Un Que'bec renouvele' dans une Ame'rique renove'e
\_.-===  Une entente au contenu insatisfaisant!     Mon opinion ? Non !
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY)
Subject: Re: TO ALL CANADIAN WHO LIVE IN TORONTO!!
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 12:08:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.065258.12434@schbbs.mot.com>, RNM192@paccvm.corp.mot.com (Irene Pan)    writes...
>I will move to Canada just in few weeks from Japan.  I would appreciate
>if anyone can tell me more about Canada.  Since I will be living in
>Toronto for only eight months, I would like to know something like where
>to shop , where to go for sightseeing and the lifestyle in Toronto.
>I would also like to know which church I can go on Sunday since I won't
>have a car while I stay in Toronto.
>Please send those information to me through EMail.
>Thanks in advance!
> 


You have my sympathy - Canada is an extremely boring and mediocre country, and 
Toronto is extremely cold.  Could you not have chosen an 8 months period
that did not encompass the whole of winter?

For sights and lifestyle, cross the border and head south or west.  It's
much less expensive and has lots of interesting things to see.  East, west
and North or toronto is just a wasteland.  By the way I am English, not
American, so this is an entirely objective apraisal!!

Laurence

Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: sysmark@helios.physics.utoronto.ca (Mark Bartelt)
Subject: Re: TO ALL CANADIANS
Reply-To: mark@cita.toronto.edu
Organization: University of Toronto Physics/Astronomy/CITA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:53:46 GMT

[ Holly Silva, to Anthony Maillard ]

| 	You are the second jerk, M. Maillard, who assumed Sir Laurence
| Godawful to be an American _despite_ his explicit statement to the contrary.

Before you accuse anybody of jerkdom, it might be worth considering the fact
that M. Maillard's message may have been composed and sent on its way before
M. Godfrey's revelation of his true whereabouts arrived at M. Maillard's site.

And, prior to his statement that he's actually in England, the assumption that
he was in the US was a rather sensible one to make.  He posts, after all, from
a machine in the "ssc.gov" domain (Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory),
which is (last I heard) in Texas.

Mark Bartelt                                                      416/978-5619
Canadian Institute for                                   mark@cita.toronto.edu
Theoretical Astrophysics                                 mark@cita.utoronto.ca

"Clothes not busy being worn are busy drying."     -     Dylan, on laundry day
             [ singing "It's all right, ma (I'm only bleaching)" ]
From: slib1614@altair.selu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: RE:TO ALL CANADIANS...
Date: 14 Oct 92 16:19:57 -0600
Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University

Much of this discussion has been sad. The saddest of all is the absolute fool
who made the initial comments putting down an entire country.
From: hlee@unixg.ubc.ca (Henry Lee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: |*| 50 years ago -- October 11, 1942 : The St. Roch |*|
Date: 12 Oct 1992 19:24:18 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: kynok.ucs.ubc.ca

50 years ago on October 11th, 1942, the St. Roch completed 
the Northwest Passage West to East and sailed into the port of Halifax.

The voyage, taking 28 months, ensured Canada of complete
sovereignty of east-west passage through the Arctic.

The St. Roch is now inside the Maritime Museum here in Vancouver.
-- 
Henry Lee   <hlee@unixg.ubc.ca> // <lee@physics.ubc.ca>
From: tholome@bangalore.esf.de (Eric Tholome)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: U.S.A. vs Canada (was: Re: TO ALL CANADIAN WHO LIVE IN TORONTO!!)
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:30:27 GMT
Reply-To: tholome@bangalore.esf.de (Eric Tholome)
Organization: ESF Headquarters, Berlin, FRG

Since some of you are comparing the U.S.A. and Canada, I thought I'd ask you the following question:

it seems generally admitted that Canada (on average) is a better place to live than the U.S.A. (on average again. Please no comment, this isn't the question yet!).

But what about California? I've spent quite some time in several different places in the U.S.A. and lived a year in California (near SF). Well, it seemed to me that California was really far above the average American state, especially around SF. Unfortunately, I've never been to Canada (but I'm sure I'll make it soon). Therefore I'd like to know how you, netters, would compare California with Canada, especially with the West Canadian Coast (Vancouver, ...). In other words, when Mark Bartelt quotes his vis


itors saying about Toronto: "it's a much nicer (and more fun) place to live than whatever (US) cities they're currently living in", has he had this reaction from people living in the Bay Area of SF?

And if it turns out that, YES, Canada is even better than California, well, I'll take the next plane! :-)

						Eric

-- 
_____________________________________________________________________________
Eric Tholome       ESF Headquarters             internet: tholome@esf.de
                   Hohenzollerndamm 152         UUCP:     tholome@esf.uucp
                   D-1000 Berlin 33             Ph.:      +49 30 82 09 03 25
                               Germany          Fax:      +49 30 82 09 03 19
From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: What about the Canadians?
Date: 11 Oct 92 16:49:21 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

In article <=95-58+@engin.umich.edu> marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>mre@teal.Eng.Sun.COM (Mike Eisler) writes:
>>Besides, last time I was in Calgary, I looked at a book in the "Canadianna"
>>section of a bookstore that discussed geography after Quebec separation. 
>>The author suggested that Montreal itself might be carved up into sectors
>>each governed by Ottawa or by Quebec City. Perhaps his proposed map had
>>the Forum in the Ottawa sector!
>>
>Are you sure it wasn't in the "Science Fiction and Fantasy" section (or
>maybe the "War Stories" section)?

	So, what  do people  think about the military exercise next
Tuesday? Great timing, diplomacywise, or what?

							James Nicoll
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: What if it's No-No?
Keywords: canadian broadcast, usa federal, government
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:07:22 GMT
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel

clarinews@clarinet.com ((Marshall-GLOBE/Standard Broadcast News)) writes
in clari.canada.gov,clari.canada.general:
>
>	(TORONTO) Here is the breakdown by region for this morning's Globe
>and Mail poll on the October 26th referendum.
>	
>	The question asked was: ''Do you agree that the Constitution of
>Canada should be renewed on the basis of the agreement reached on August
>28th, 1992?''
>	
>	REGION........... YES......... NO.......... UNDECIDED... OTHER
>	
>	B.C.............. 34.......... 51.......... 13.......... 3
>	Prairies......... 47.......... 41.......... 11.......... 1
>	Ontario.......... 44.......... 37.......... 16.......... 4
>	Quebec........... 27.......... 54.......... 14.......... 5
>	Atlantic......... 52.......... 33.......... 14.......... 1
>	
>	All of Canada.... 40.......... 43.......... 14.......... 3

[n.b., I believe that proper attributionss have been made above for
use of this data for my article.]

Okay folks, so far we've been talking about the ramifications of
Yes-Yes and Yes-No in the referendum for (Canada - Quebec) and 
Quebec, respectively (using set notation (-;) ... what about No-No?

Seems that it'd come out as a united country to me ... (-;

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				
> gld@cunixB.cc.columbia.EDU		Oct 26/92: Just say "OUI!"
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			(Let's worry about the economy!)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young)
Subject: Re: What about the Canadians?
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 00:57:23 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

mre@teal.Eng.Sun.COM (Mike Eisler) writes:
>Besides, last time I was in Calgary, I looked at a book in the "Canadianna"
>section of a bookstore that discussed geography after Quebec separation. 
>The author suggested that Montreal itself might be carved up into sectors
>each governed by Ottawa or by Quebec City. Perhaps his proposed map had
>the Forum in the Ottawa sector!
>
Are you sure it wasn't in the "Science Fiction and Fantasy" section (or
maybe the "War Stories" section)?

Was it perhaps co-authored by Slobodan Milosovic?

...mark young
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:7305 sci.research.careers:1292
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Constitution/Economy
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:56:16 GMT

In article <16267@mindlink.bc.ca> Desiree_Bradley@mindlink.bc.ca (Desiree Bradley) writes:
>I have heard that if the referendum is passed the federal government and the
>provincial governments will get to work on the economy.  But I have doubts
>about that.
>

The problem is that to get to work on the economy, they will have to
work around all the obstacles they have created in Charlottetown which
make addressing the economic challenges we face all that more difficult.

Charlottetown has made of mess of labour mobility and training, and
telecommunications...areas crucial to our economic future.  They
have maintained interprovincial trade barriers in Charlottetown.
The provisions for bilateral and multilateral agreements will create
immense confusion for business to determine which level of government
is responsible for what in different provinces...and Charlottetown
has hamstrung the ability of the federal government to act in the
national interest.

Gerald
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: |*| 50 years ago -- October 11, 1942 : The St. Roch |*|
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:15:18 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems

In <1bcjd2INNqps@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> hlee@unixg.ubc.ca (Henry Lee) writes:

>50 years ago on October 11th, 1942, the St. Roch completed 
>the Northwest Passage West to East and sailed into the port of Halifax.

>The voyage, taking 28 months, ensured Canada of complete
>sovereignty of east-west passage through the Arctic.

>The St. Roch is now inside the Maritime Museum here in Vancouver.
>-- 
>Henry Lee   <hlee@unixg.ubc.ca> // <lee@physics.ubc.ca>

Iremember seeing it (nice museum BTW) and my hat's off to the
men who sailed her, she's not all that big a craft.

Bob.
From: Desiree_Bradley@mindlink.bc.ca (Desiree Bradley)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Constitution/Economy
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:13:28 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

I have heard that if the referendum is passed the federal government and the
provincial governments will get to work on the economy.  But I have doubts
about that.

Suppose that the various governments did do something that would improve
business conditions and lower the unemployment rate.  I can just hear the
Americans complaining about subsidies or unfair business practices or lack of
a "level playing field."  If the Americans didn't complain and the Mexicans
didn't, I dare say that businesses in Canada would say that whatever the feds
or the provinces were doing was making it impossible to compete in the global
market.

Isn't it now supposed to be a fact that governments can't do anything about
the economy?  The way I look at it, the provinces and the feds might as well
go on and on about the constitution.  Even if they had a bit more money, they
couldn't do anything else.  And the consitution is perfect for people who
like to chatter.

Desiree Bradley
From: smith@gramian.harvard.edu (Steven Smith)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: community, compromise, and individual liberty
Date: 16 Oct 92 15:18:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: gramian.SMITH.92Oct16101828
	<WARKENT.92Oct15143739@ltisun14.epfl.ch>
Followup-To: soc.culture.canada
Distribution: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Organization: Harvard Robotics Lab, Harvard University

warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne) writes:

> smith@minerva.harvard.edu (Steven Smith) wrote:
> >Exactly which compromises do you wish to make?
> >One lesson I take from history is that the individual must reign supreme.
> 
> I disagree.  In many cases one person or group of people may take
> an action that other individuals will have a very hard time proving
> to infringe on their "individual rights". On the other hand, it may
> not be difficult to show that such an action harms the community.

I'm sorry, but I just can't extract any meaning from these sentences.
What are you getting at here?

> I think environmental protection is an example of this.  And what
> about education and who pays for it? If the individual reigns
> supreme, I fail to see how we could have any public education
> whatsoever.

Why not?  Communities (of individuals), acting in their self interest,
certainly have an incentive to provide decent schools.

> If we agree that education is for the collective good and that this
> is a sufficient reason for obliging all individuals who partake of
> the collective to help pay for it, then I can start making similar
> arguments about other cultural issues, and so on.

I think you unfairly portray my defense of the individual by
suggesting that I imply that children can do whatever they wish and
that individuals are devoid of societal responsibilities.

I responded to your post because you made some collectivist appeal
about how we should abrogate some of our liberties for the common
good, and in so doing, you belittled the importance of the individual.
That is a dangerous and ugly path.

> >If individual liberties are not central to our society, then
> >what is?
> 
> They are central, but they are not the only things that are central.

Some animals or more central than others?

> >And what argument against ``group rights'' could be more
> >sound than asserting the supremacy of individual rights and the
> >equality of individuals?
> >Why do you think Orwell's line about some
> >animals being more equal than others is so ironic and funny?

> I don't agree since the very existance of national borders implies
> the existance of a "group right".  If one truly believes in the
> supremacy of individual rights, can one support the fact that the
> rights we enjoy in Canada are not extended to the entire world?

Are you serious?

Steven Smith