HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Gun Control Petition
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 20:44:33 PST
Distribution: can
Organization: Robert Smits

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

> In article <w2JoVB1w164w@ham.almanac.bc.ca> emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
> >ignoring all the entirely legitimate uses of guns - including, but not 
> >limited to, hunting, competitive shooting, protection of livestock, 
> >protection from wild animals, etc.
> >
> "Entirely legitimate"?  Hunting and keeping livestock are of questionable
> legitimacy.


To whom? Outside of a few people with allergies and a handful of 
vegatarians of various stripes, most people eat meat, eggs, and drink 
milk or eat milk products. Human beings are omnivorous and have been so 
for centuries. 

The only thing that's questionable is your grasp on reality.


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,talk.politics.animals
From: g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh)
Subject: Re: meat eaters (was: Re: Gun Control Petition)
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: University of Toronto Computing Disciplines Facility
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 00:57:38 GMT

In article <schuck.724464576@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>If [talk.politics.animals] is available at your site and you want to debate 
>>this subject, perhaps you should subscribe to it.
>I am debating it. If you want to debate it somewhere else go ahead.
>But, I like my thread in can.general.
>
>>>>Do you think someone who sets fire to dogs for fun is being unethical?
>>>
>>>If the dog is dead and the person plans to eat it, then the answer is no.
>>>If it is killing for the sheer pleasure of killing and torturing for
>>>the pure pleasure of torture, then yes.
>
>>How about killing for the sheer pleasure of the taste of meat?  Why is it
>>different?  Why does the pleasure some people derive from eating meat
>>justify the killing of animals, when we agree that the pleasure some people
>>derive from killing does not?
>
>Predators probably enjoy the taste of a young healthy game animal more
>than old diseased ones. Just because an animal enjoys one type of food
>over another doesn't make it wrong.

You haven't answered the question.  What is the difference between killing
someone for the "pleasure" of eating his or her flesh, and killing someone for
the "pleasure" of watching him or her die?
>
>Human beings *need* animal protein to stay healthy.

This is patently untrue.  See for example the position paper of the American
Dietetic Assiciation on vegetarianism, in the March 1988 issue of Journal of the
ADA.

>>Meat-eating is hardly analogous,
>>since it is not the lesser of two evils, it is an unnecessary evil.
>
>Unnecessary? Where do you think milk comes from? Where does yogurt
>come from? Eggs?

I do not eat these substances either, why do you assume I do?
>
>I've already made the point that killing for another reason than food
>is not something I approve of. 

Why is food an exception?

>>*No* cruelty is an impossible ideal, alas.  I am advocating eliminating as
>>much cruelty as we can.
>
>Suicide is an easily obtainable ideal.
>What you are really saying is that avoiding cruely to animals is only
>worth it when it doesn't inconvenience you *too* much.

Good grief.
-- 
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: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: meat eaters (was: Re: Gun Control Petition)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 06:15:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.045709.29345@xenitec.on.ca> merce@xenitec.on.ca (Jim Mercer) writes:
>god, you are really coming across as a zealot.

Spare me the melodrama, please. Vegan does mean no animal products or
byproducts. A vegan diet does give you a balanced diet. So just stating
that view is merely clarifying things.

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

Why are you calling someone a twit, when she has merely clarified the
dietary characteristics of a vegan? So you can't take in opinion
contrary to your own and think about them?

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

Lots of people do! I see hundreds of them at The Green Door whenever I
eat there! I see more hundreds at lots of pot luck dinners I go to!
Just because you haven't met them shurely doesn't mean they don't
exist! By extension, if you keep reading can.politics, you'd think the
Reform party will get 95% of the national vote the next time around!
The Net is _not_ a reality check on the general mood of the Canadian
population, as I've been told recently by some kind soul out there.
-- 
Michael MY Hui  ~{~}  myhui@bnr.ca  Ottawa Canada
Newsgroups: can.general
From: klassen@sol.UVic.CA (Melvin Klassen)
Subject: Re: Good Canadian wines for Xmas (don't Laugh)
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C. CANADA
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 19:28:14 GMT

In article <@> jbutt@odie.cs.mun.ca (Jonathan Butt) writes:
>Does any one know of any good Canadian Wines I can give as gifts for Xmas??

In his weekly syndicated newspaper column "The grapes of Gothe",
Jurgen Gothe reviews the second edition of the book 'Vintage Canada',
and calls it "a marvellous introduction to the considerable developments
in Canada's wine industry".  It's written by Tony Aspler, who's been
writing on the subject of wine for the Toronto Star since 1981.
It has more than 100 pages of individual wine-tasting notes.
The 300-page McGill-Hill Ryerson paperback is $19.95, and "comes
recommended both as a gift and for your own cellar shelf".
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
From: g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh)
Subject: Re: Gun Control Petition
Organization: University of Toronto Computing Disciplines Facility
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:14:05 GMT

In article <w2JoVB1w164w@ham.almanac.bc.ca> emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>ignoring all the entirely legitimate uses of guns - including, but not 
>limited to, hunting, competitive shooting, protection of livestock, 
>protection from wild animals, etc.
>
"Entirely legitimate"?  Hunting and keeping livestock are of questionable
legitimacy.
-- 
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,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross)
Subject: Re: Obtuse and Humorless Anonymous (was Re: Note to Schuck, et.a
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Brock University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:01:27 GMT

CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94) writes:
: In article <1992Dec11.145833.8576@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
: >marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
: >: (Tom Gray) writes:
: >: [MLK's "I have a dream" speech]
: >:
: >: (Brian J Ross) writes:
: >: >A Trudeau apologist like Tom Gray has a lot of nerve quoting Abraham Lincoln.
: >:
: >: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (Tom Box) writes:
: >: : Perhaps I'm just obtuse or humorless, but I fail to see the joke.
: >: : Since Mark Bartelt also seems baffled by your comment, perhaps
: >: : you could provide us with the "intricate explanation" you mention
: >: : above.
: >:
: >: bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
: >: >You are just obtuse and humorless.
: >:
: >: Hello.  My name is Mark, and I'm Obtuse and Humorless.
: >
: >It would be more constructive for those who AREN'T obtuse and
: >humourless to stand up and say their names.
: >
: Good idea.  Since Brian seems unwilling to provide us with his
: "intricate explanation" of his joke, I invite anybody else
: on the net who sees the humor in attributing M.L. King's
: "I have a dream" speech to Abraham Lincoln to explain the joke
: to the Marks and Toms who are not ROFL.
: 
: Tom Box

Because Tom is so sadly handicapped, here's an explanation.  
It is ridiculous that a speech performed at the Lincoln Memorial
in 1963 would have been said by Abe Lincoln.  Suggesting that this
would be the case is silly. Hence some light, silly humour, especially
amusing because Tom Gray is a serious defender of the Canadian national
faith, and this inane response belittles the thread. (Look at the rest of the
responses to his post -- there are none.)

Tom, even though the usenet is over-populated with anal retentive 
ultra-logical computer scientists, you don't HAVE to conform to that
stereotype if you don't want to.  Loosen up. Rock and roll a little.

-- 
Brian Ross                          "Welcome to Canada." -- Twin Peaks Movie.
bross@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca            
Newsgroups: can.general
From: Robert_Broughton@mindlink.bc.ca (Robert Broughton)
Subject: Re: Good Canadian wines for Xmas (don't Laugh)
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 04:56:18 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.032417.14262@cs.mun.ca> jbutt@odie.cs.mun.ca (Jonathan
Butt) writes:
>
>Does any one know of any good Canadian Wines I can give as gifts for Xmas??
>

I have no trouble recommending anything that comes from Gray Monk, North
America's northernmost winery. The last time I checked, however, all their
products were white (mostly German grapes, but they have both dry and sweet
products.) If you want red wine, you may be better off looking for something
from the Niagara Peninsula.

--
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

Robert Broughton    Robert_Broughton@mindlink.bc.ca

"We calm and reassure. We embrace people with the message that we're
all in it together. That our leaders are infallible and that there is
nothing, absolutely nothing wrong." - Miles Drentell, _thirtysomething_
Newsgroups: can.general,rec.food.veg
From: g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh)
Subject: Re: Terminology Re: meat eaters (was: Re: Gun Control Petition)
Organization: University of Toronto Computing Disciplines Facility
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 22:21:51 GMT

In article <altar.724802246@sfu.ca> altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:
>What about some intermediate term like "semi-vegetarian"?  I would
>like to give people making that attempt some credit and acknowledgement
>of their achievement.  What do you think?
>
Okay.

-- 
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
From: buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Canada's role in Somalia
Date: 11 Dec 1992 19:12:33 GMT
Organization: University Computing Services, UBC, Canada
Distribution: can
NNTP-Posting-Host: swiss.ucs.ubc.ca

 I think we should look on Canada's role in Somalia as being that
 of a peace officer.  We can't be peacekeepers in a country with
 no government, a country in a state of anarchy, a country with
 no law but that of the gun.  We _can_ be peacekeepers once there
 is a peace, which we and our colleagues on the multi-national
 force must first make.  This is a new kind of role, in the
 emerging world which some call the New World Order - a good name
 unfortunately ruined by the Nazis.  I heartily applaud it.
 
 It's like the Old West; the one of myth, anyway.  You have a
 wild town in which the honest and hard-working settlers are
 terrorized by gunmen who take what they want by force and who
 shoot each other, and anybody who gets in the way, with impunity.
 You don't start with a sheriff.  You start with a marshal, who
 establishes order at gunpoint, makes as many examples as are
 required, and then holds the gunmen at bay while the citizens
 form a government and elect the sheriff.  Then the marshal leaves,
 assuring the sheriff that help will be sent if the new order
 is attacked by a resurgence of the old.
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
From: stevew@teleride.on.ca (Stephen M. Webb)
Subject: Re: Monetary "theory"
Organization: Teleride Sage Ltd.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:44:41 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.061511.19070@csi.uottawa.ca> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>
>How do they add the loan to both sides of the ledger?  Easy.  They
>borrowed it from you, and then lend it to someone else.  They make
>money because the interest that they pay you is lower than the
>interest that they charge to that "someone else".

Think about the phrasing of that statement.  That was my original point in this
thread: the only real money banks make or create is from the interest.  Of
course the money to pay that interest actually comes from somewhere else.

-- 
------- Stephen M. Webb -------

Ack!  I've accidentally broken my leg!  -- Ed the Happy Clown

Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
From: morton@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Brent Morton)
Subject: Re: Gun Control Petition
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 05:48:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.001405.1@uwovax.uwo.ca> 4224_5201@uwovax.uwo.ca (John LaRocque) writes:
>In article <schuck.724384514@sfu.ca>, schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:
>
>(John rudely enters the great Bruce vs Veggies debate...   )
>
>
>>>On the contrary, I know of many human beings who are herbivores, 
>
>Meat eating is natural. To go against nature is communist. Vegetarians go
>against nature by opposing meat. Therefore vegetarians are communist.
>

McCarthyism is alive and well, I see. Well, at least now we know who's been
behind the vegetarian movement -- the KGB. 

Sheesh.

-- Brent
morton@artifis.gaul.csd.uwo.ca
Newsgroups: can.general
From: clifta@fraser.sfu.ca (Robert Fredrick Clift)
Subject: Re: ?SENDING SASE CANADA TO U
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 06:55:47 GMT

You should be able to get IRCs (International Reply Coupons) from the
post office.  These have been used for years by shortwave listeners
and amateur radio operators to deal with the international SASE
situation.  If you go to a real post office (not one of those
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: charles@cs.UAlberta.CA (Charles Jobagy)
Subject: Re: Latest evil Canada Post plot
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:30:48 GMT

jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:

>They are overpaid, and the union's monopoly on labor deprives other people
>the ability to work for what THEY consdier 'fair' wages

What monoply, you can use any shipper you want. Next time you have an
envelope or parcel to ship call a courier service or trucking company. The
rates on large, heavy parcels are better than Can. Post. The rates on letters,
well, they need to turn that big corporate profit. Maybe you should remeber
these rates if Can. Post is privatized.

>Even in the private sector, they would make more than minimum wage,
>but not as much as they do now, because the work ISN'T WORTH that much
>money! I could line up plenty of people who would work for
>less, instead of being shut out of a job by the unions. Low risk,
>low skill jobs like delivering mail aren't worth $25 an hour or
>whatever ridiculous wage they make. You could easily get 3 people working
>for that much, which would make those unemployed people a lot happier.

F.Y.I. Can. Post is not only privatizing stations but is also franchising
deivery routes and contracting hauling bulk. It seems to me that they are
being slowly privatized with the feds having ultimate control over the
service. Probably the best solution, if they can also get rid of the excess
management. I still believe that if Can. Post is fully privatized the new
ownwers would rape it and then join the line up for government handouts,
behind Air Canada.

>You don't have a RIGHT to earn $XYZ per hour, your wages reflect your SKILLS
>or the relative risk that your work exposes you to. Most jobs in the Post
>Office need as much skill as working at McDonalds, and they should be paid
>accordingly.

And they will perform accordingly.

>>People performing a public service are entitled to a living wage for 
>>doing it. The present Canada Post policies attacking workers wages and 
>>reducing or eliminating service to the public altogether stink!

>Again "entitled"! What Crap. You aren't entitled to anything except the
>opportunity to compete and succeed in life based on your own merits.
>Even if they are entitled to a 'living wage' they aren't entitled to
>as much as they earn now.

I hope you are prepared to justify your own existence also.

>Monopoly labor (unions) is no better than monopoly corporations and
>industries.

Then why do you only attack one, or are you afraid to bite the hand that
feeds?

>__________________________________________________________________________
> John Paul Morrison                     |  
> University of British Columbia, Canada |  
> Electrical Engineering                 |   .sig file without a cause
> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  
>________________________________________|_________________________________

Charles Jobagy
charles@cs.ualberta.ca
Newsgroups: can.general,rec.food.veg
From: g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh)
Subject: Terminology Re: meat eaters (was: Re: Gun Control Petition)
Organization: University of Toronto Computing Disciplines Facility
Distribution: can
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 17:50:18 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.222538.29577@xenitec.on.ca> merce@xenitec.on.ca (Jim Mercer) writes:
>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.

No.  Saying "I am a vegetarian and I eat shellfish" is like saying "I don't
eat flesh, but I eat flesh."  (I have never heard Michael say he is a 
vegetarian, by the way.  He has said that he is almost a vegetarian, which I
think is a fair description.)
>
>to categorically say that one cannot be a vegetarian because of a variance,
>is being a bit to picky to me.
>
I am just correcting the use of the term because when it is not clearly 
defined one ends up being served chicken or fish after saying one is a 
vegetarian.  Making the term fuzzy gains nothing and causes confusion and
stress.
-- 
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,ns.general
From: legrady@ug.cs.dal.ca (Tom Legrady)
Subject: Re: Lead news stories...
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Distribution: can,ns
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 23:16:36 GMT


>If Diana's not Queen, Charles won't be king. Their eldest son will.

I don't follow your logic. It may be that public opiion would prevent
Charles from becoming king if he divorces, but then again it may not.
The only thing that is certain is that Diana will not become Queen if
she is not married to Charles. His new wife will, if there is one.

Anyway, what's all the fuss about a (future) king who divorces his
wife.  At least he hasn't had her head cut off, or forced the whole
nation to convert to a new religion ...


Tom Legrady
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Monetary "theory"
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 16:20:14 GMT

In article <BzFJEH.9K4@teleride.on.ca> stevew@teleride.on.ca (Stephen M. Webb) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.061511.19070@csi.uottawa.ca> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>>
>>How do they add the loan to both sides of the ledger?  Easy.  They
>>borrowed it from you, and then lend it to someone else.  They make
>>money because the interest that they pay you is lower than the
>>interest that they charge to that "someone else".
>
>Think about the phrasing of that statement.  That was my original point in this
>thread: the only real money banks make or create is from the interest.  

I should have phrased it better: "They make a profit because..."
rather than "They make money..." because we're talking about "making
money" in rather different context than was meant there.

The only entity that can "create" money in the context of M0
(currency) is the Bank of Canada, in its issuance of bills and coins.

However, the banks most certainly do create money in the context of
M1; the monetary aggregate that includes chequable deposits.
Chequable deposits aren't actually currency, but are an alternative to
currency that in practice are treated as if they were as good as cash.
Banks most definitely ARE able to increase M1, as well as further
aggregates like M2 and M3.

>Of course the money to pay that interest actually comes from
>somewhere else.

Actually, THAT is the money that really does get created at the bank.
The bank made loans of $10,000 to A, based on deposits of $10,000 from
B.  At the end of the month, they simply write down the fact that A
owes them interest, and that they owe B some interest.  It's TOTALLY
independent from any actual cash payment.

They don't actually want A to repay the loan - they just want him to
keep paying interest.  At first blush, this looks less than sensible.
They generally aren't too happy if you're late with your car payments,
for instance.  But the concern THERE is that they don't want to have
risky loans outstanding.

The principle is that they DO want to loan out money.  That's their
primary source of income.  What do you think would happen if everyone
at some point paid off ALL bank loans?  It would be SERIOUSLY bad
news, at least for the bank, since the bank wouldn't have any source
of income.

-- 
Christopher Browne                |     PGP 2.0 key available
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca           |===================================
University of Ottawa              |  The Personal Computer:  Colt 45
Master of System Science Program  |  of the Information Frontier
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: What do we call Greenlanders (was What to call people from the U
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 92 19:55:13 PST
Distribution: can
Organization: Robert Smits

eandersn@mach1.wlu.ca (Niels Ejvind Andersen) writes:

> emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca wrote:
> : And what do we call the Greenlanders? They're certainly not Europeans.
> 
> Why not call them Danes?
> --


Well, for one thing, because they're not from Denmark. And for another, 
because the conversation was about who was included in the general term 
"American" - referring to the continent, not the country.


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

The Vital Precept

One vital precept isn't taught
sufficiently imperiously:
that other people didn't ought
to take themselves too seriously   - Piet Hein
Newsgroups: can.general,rec.food.veg