HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: meat eaters (was: Re: Gun Control Petition)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 05:21:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.221824.25929@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> jlacey@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (james.w.lacey) writes:
>I believe a better analogy is a vegetarian who eats fish (or other
>flesh) now and then is like a person who takes a vow of celibacy
>and only has sex now and then.

Sorry.

None of these analogies are necessary, nor are they accurate.

Keeping to a vegetarian diet could be motivated by religion, compassion
for animals, care for one's health, care for the planet's health,
preference for certain types of food, or simply by sheer coincidence
without any concious restriction on one's part to any particular food
type.

That silly debate over vegan being something like a Jim Jones-led
religious sect is just that: SILLY.
-- 
Michael MY Hui  ~{~}  myhui@bnr.ca  Ottawa Canada
Xref: sparky can.general:6001 can.politics:10800
From: robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Gun Control Petition
Date: 15 Dec 92 15:23:16 GMT
Followup-To: can.general,can.politics
Distribution: can
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Brian Hohm (hohm@cpsc.ucalgary.ca) wrote:
: At the risk of misrepresenting all the anti-gun control arguments
: that I've read recently, a lot of pro-gun posters seem to be saying
: that owning a gun is some kind of patriotic duty.  I've read that
: private ownership of guns is essential for the defense of democracy,

That's because there was cross-posting into talk.politics.guns and
therefore a lot of US responses.   The Second Amendment in the US 
basically states that private ownership of guns *is* essential for
the defense the republic.

: and the only way to protect your family and your property.

Well what method would *you* recommend to people that live in rural
areas that have NO police protection at night or where the average
response time is greater than 45 minutes protect their families
and property?

: I think this line of argument is wrong.  Guns are rarely,
: if ever, used to drive off tyrants, thieves and rapists.

That's interesting,  very few tyrants have been driven off with
anything other than guns (or swords, or bows, ...).   

When I was 14 or 15 we had a rape victim come to our house.
I let her in, loaded a shotgun in case her attacker came back,
and called Zenith 50000.  It took 35 minutes for the police to
show up.

If I did not have the shotgun I probably would have left her outside to
freeze,  I had a 8 year old sister and a 12 year old brother to worry
about.

: If a gun kills somebody chances are it kills a person it was bought
: originally to protect.  That's right, if a gun kills somebody chances
: are it's being used in a suicide, a family dispute, or an
: accidental discharge.

Accidental deaths due to guns are very rare,  more people drown or
kill themselves in falls off ladders or down stairs.

I'd like to see evidence that suicide by firearms would not result
in suicide by pill, rope, or tall building if there were no firearms.

I'd like to see evidence that family disputes that result in murder
by firearm would not result in murder by knife or strangulation
if there were no firearms.

: Guns have no purpose other than to kill people.

I use my guns for hunting and target shooting.   I've yet to kill anybody.
By your definition I must be doing something wrong.

: I'm tired of reading that they have a politicly stablizing effect.  

And I'm tired of reading about how guns have no purpose other than
to kill people.   It scares me to think what role you believe the
police officers revolver plays in society.

Rob.
--
Robert A. Osborne   ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or robert@isgtec.com
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
From: hohm@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Brian Hohm)
Subject: Re: Gun Control Petition
Organization: University of Calgary Computer Science
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:48:34 GMT

At the risk of misrepresenting all the anti-gun control arguments
that I've read recently, a lot of pro-gun posters seem to be saying
that owning a gun is some kind of patriotic duty.  I've read that
private ownership of guns is essential for the defense of democracy,
and the only way to protect your family and your property.

I think this line of argument is wrong.  Guns are rarely,
if ever, used to drive off tyrants, thieves and rapists.
If a gun kills somebody chances are it kills a person it was bought
originally to protect.  That's right, if a gun kills somebody chances
are it's being used in a suicide, a family dispute, or an
accidental discharge.

Guns have no purpose other than to kill people.  I'm tired of reading
that they have a politicly stablizing effect.  

JB Hohm
-- 

[hohm@cpsc.ucalgary.ca]
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,talk.politics.animals
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Supreme Court allows pedophiles access to playgrounds!
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 04:10:58 GMT

The Supreme Court struck down a loitering law that had been used to
keep a convicted sex offender from hanging around playgrounds and
taking pictures of kids.

The 'offender' [pervert?] had been caught when an employee of a
film developing firm noticed a batch of pictures consisted of
pictures of little girls with their underwear showing.

What a wonderful blow for freedom our Supreme Court has struck again.

Isn't it nice to know that men have the right to hang around playgrounds
and take pictures of little girls panties.


This *wonderful* ruling follows on the announcement that a man who had
been found not guilty because of mental competence of the ballpeen
hammer slaying of a Vancouver Island woman 18 months ago, was going to
be freed for Christmas. This is the result of an earlier Supreme Court
ruling that struck down a law allowing the government to hold such
people in proper institutions for a reasonable amount of time.


Isn't it nice to know the Supreme Court is keeping Canada a safer
place for pedophiles and ballpeen hammer killers!


Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Monetary "theory"
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 07:12:07 GMT

In article <BzE17K.K8o@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> tjdoran@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (DORAN TJ - BIOLOGY) writes:
>
>There are economists who feel that faith is the *only* deciding factor in
>our economic setup. It takes faith in the future to borrow money, and 
>borrowing money is the fuel of our system.
>
>Too bad the Tories can't generate faith that things are looking up.   
>

But the fact remains that the international money markets probably
have significantly greater trust in the Tories, than they would
in the Liberals...(and forget about the NDP).  As an election 
nears and the international markets begin noticing the poll numbers
and the utter nonsense that spews from Jean Chretien and his leading
finance critic Herb Gray...we should be prepared for another roller
coaster ride like we had during the referendum.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.general
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: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:49:48 GMT

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

>[trying to move this thread to talk.politics.animals, again.]

I don't read that group, and I like to my responses show up and
respond to them.

>In article <schuck.724449059@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>>g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:

>>>It's not just a question of practicality, it's a question of ethics.  Is it
>>>ethical to harm others just for pleasure?  I don't think sex is a good analogy
>>>for meat eating, rape or sadism would be closer.
>>
>>Rape? I *never* have sex with my food.

>I was responding to whoever it was who likened meat for pleasure to sex for
>pleasure.

>>
>>Sadism? I usually wait until the animal is dead before I eat it.
>>

>Murder and necrophilia, if you prefer

Murder? Killing an animal for food isn't murder when a human does it
any more than a cougar killing a deer to eat is murder.

Necrophilia? You have sex on the brain.

>>Vegetarians who think they are more *ethical* because they don't eat
>>meat are completely delusional and have a much higher opinion of
>>themselves and human beings than is warranted.
>>
>>It is abnormal and perverse to think eating vegetables instead of meat
>>makes one more ethical than a person or animal that eats meat.
>>

>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.

>In my experience most people are opposed to cruelty to animals.  Vegetarianism
>is merely a logical extension of this.

Is the SPCA cruel to animals when it 'puts to sleep' thousands of
animals each year? No.

A sledgehammer blow to the head or a high speed bullet to the brain
causes little or no pain and is not cruelty.

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

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.


Xref: sparky can.general:6061 can.politics:10898
From: rickie@trickie.UUCP (Richard Nash)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re:  Gun Control Petition
Date: 18 Dec 92 00:23:59 CST
Distribution: can
Organization: Not an Organization

In article <w2JoVB1w164w@ham.almanac.bc.ca> emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>hohm@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Brian Hohm) writes:
>
>> Guns have no purpose other than to kill people.  I'm tired of reading
>> that they have a politicly stablizing effect.  
>> 
>
>
>Your assertion that guns have no other purpose than to kill people is a 
>bald-faced LIE. I'm tired of reading half-baked propaganda from the Walt 
>Disney School that equates every use of a gun with killing people, thus 
>ignoring all the entirely legitimate uses of guns - including, but not 
>limited to, hunting, competitive shooting, protection of livestock, 
>protection from wild animals, etc.
                 ^----------^
                      |- since when can you or I lug around a gun in the
                         National Parks to protect ourselves from wild
                         animals?
                       - Elsewhere is no problem to have a gun,  but where
                         there are the most wildest and dangerous animals,
                         no way!  You are potential food for the bears!
Is a gun really necessary for survival in our environment today?
Is pleasure killing a justification for the production and legalized
distribution of guns?
>
>Yes, gun use must be regulated and responsible, but the use of guns is 
>entirely legitimate and even necessary for many people. The issue of 
>proper gun use is NOT simple or a black and white issue as you suggest.
--
 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 Richard Nash              Edmonton, Alberta Canada T6K 0E8
 UUCP:                     rickie%trickie@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca
 Amatuer Radio Packet:     ve6bon%ve6bon.ampr.ab.ca@gw-1.ampr.ab.ca
                           ve6bon.ampr.ab.ca [192.75.200.15]
 


Newsgroups: can.general
From: cal@ee.ryerson.ca (Calvin Henry-Cotnam)
Subject: Re: Food banks
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, Toronto
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:44:24 GMT

buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland) writes:
> Has everybody forgotten that food banks were introduced as a
> short-term measure in a time of drastic budget cutbacks?

I certainly haven't forgotten that.

Neither have I forgotten the fact that Income Tax was introduced
as a short-term measure to pay for our efforts in World War One!


Calvin Henry-Cotnam, CATE          | "...My brain IBM"
Ryerson Polytechnical Institute    | "So if you see me, acting stangely..."
Toronto, Ontario, Canada           |                  STYX, Mr. Roboto
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: meat eaters (was: Re: Gun Control Petition)
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 19:35:48 PST
Distribution: can
Organization: Robert Smits

myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:

> 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.


Thank your favourite deity that it isn't. Amen.


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,can.politics
From: cal@ee.ryerson.ca (Calvin Henry-Cotnam)
Subject: Re: The debt
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, Toronto
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:42:08 GMT

stevew@teleride.on.ca (Stephen M. Webb) writes:
>tjdoran@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (DORAN TJ - BIOLOGY) writes:
>>
>>Let's say banks have to have 10% (for the sake of easy math) of the cash they 
>>loan out on hand at any one time. Imagine someone deposits $100. The bank can
>>add $100 to the 'assets' side of their ledgers and add $100 to the
>>'liabilities' side. They then loan you $90 (the maximum amount they can
>>lend out).
>
>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.

 [other stuff deleted]

>If you can explain to me how a bank can add the loan I made to it to both sides
>of its leger, I'd be satisfied that loans create money.

It is very simple, both your balance sheet and the bank's must stay
balanced.

Prior to your depositing (lending) the $100 to the bank, you had
an ASSET of $100 cash; after the deposit, you had an ASSET of
$100 in your accounts receivable (and IOU essentially from the bank).

Prior to your deposit, the bank's sheet is assumed balanced for this
exercise.  After your deposit, the bank's ASSETs increase by $100 cash
because the cash you deposited (and "traded" for the IOU) becomes thier
property. (note: this is why if they get held up, it is their property
that gets stolen, and they still owe you $100 'cause you own the IOU)
At the same time, their LIABILITIES increases $100 because they owe you.
Therefore, the $100 gets added to both sides of their ledger and it
remains balanced.


>I will also become
>very rich, since I could take a loan out of the bank, further loan the amount
>to myself at 0% interest, pay back the bank with the second loan, and come out
>ahead just by never paying off my own debt.

It would not work, if you draw a sample ledger for yourself, you would
see that your scenario would have your total worth never changing.  With
the scenario of the $100 deposited in the bank, the total MONEY in the
system increases (your total stays the same while the total MONEY that
the bank is involved with increases).

NOTE that CURRENCY does not increase!  MONEY and CURRENCY are not the same.
CURRENCY is a form of MONEY, but so are debt instruments such as T-Bills,
savings deposits, GIC's, bonds, etc.


Calvin Henry-Cotnam, CATE          | "...My brain IBM"
Ryerson Polytechnical Institute    | "So if you see me, acting stangely..."
Toronto, Ontario, Canada           |                  STYX, Mr. Roboto
Newsgroups: can.general
From: shephard@fraser.sfu.ca (Gordon Shephard)
Subject: FIFTEEN INCHES OF SNOW ON BURNABY HILL, SFU, VANCOUVER, BC
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 22:39:42 GMT

Wow.  We is snowed in.
My Scooter Doesn't have a chance.  I was just in a 4x4 with Weight,
and it was flying all over the place.

Slightly wet (Has been alternating between Powder/Corn/Flakes - NO slush
snow as of yet)

Most Snow I can ever remember (in the last five years) at SFU.

No Ice though.  (Most of security is considering sleeping over - For
SOME reason they haven't closed the University.  Give me a break,
Security doesn't think they can GET OFF THE HILL, Classes are over for the
Semester and they (Hmm.  I wonder who is they :) aren't closing the
university?)


-- 
| Gordon Harry Shephard         | Distributed Computing Support Group  |
| Academic Computing Services   | Phone: (604)291-3930   (604)464-4991 |
| Simon Fraser University       |                                      |
| Burnaby, BC, Canada. V5A 1S6  | shephard@sfu.ca                      | 
|                                                                      |
| Disclaimer: In No Way am I speaking for my Employers or Simon Fraser |
| University.                                                          |
From: holland@geop.ubc.ca (Stephen Holland)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: Snow in Vancouver (was Re: GOOD CANADIAN WINES FOR X)
Followup-To: can.general
Date: 19 Dec 1992 01:54:32 GMT
Organization: University of B.C. Geophysics & Astronomy
Distribution: world
Expires: January 31, 1993
NNTP-Posting-Host: rubis.astro.ubc.ca

In article <1gs05iINN7rg@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> ramsay@math.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay) writes:
>
>>PS:  Did you know that only Vancouver and Victoria are the only places
>>in Canada that have no snow.  YES NO SNOW OR COLD WEATHER.
>
>A bit exaggerated-- we did get a little snow just recently. It is just
>relatively infrequent and sparse. There was a little dusting of snow
>once last year too, as I remember.
>
No, this isn't true at all.
The occasional west coast snowfall that you hear about every now-and-then
is actually just a fiction.  You see, we plant these sorts of stories, 
complete with pictures of drivers who haven't go a clue how to drive in
the snow but insist on driving in in anyway, in the national media
just to prevent the rest of Canada from becoming to jealous of
us.


steve holland

the man with no diacritics

Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Gun Control Petition
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 01:55:14 GMT

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

>In article <schuck.724368630@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>>g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>>"Entirely legitimate"?  Hunting and keeping livestock are of questionable
>>>legitimacy.
>>Not to omnivores. Human beings are omnivores. We aren't herbivores.
>>
>On the contrary, I know of many human beings who are herbivores, 

I place these people in the category of breatharians.

Do you remember breatharians? They claimed they were so spiritually
advanced they could subsist on air alone. Ha! They turned out to be
serious Big Mac junkies.

Nobody as far as I know has made it to adulthood by being an herbivore.

>and who
>question the legitimacy of hunting and keeping livestock.  

So? Breatharians questioned the legitimacy of food, but they were liars.

>Even human beings
>who do eat dead animals have been known to question the legitimacy of hunting.

Really? Then they are hypocrites. Hunting is no different than killing
a cow with a sledgehammer, except in location and tool used.

Besides, since human beings are just animals, there is no moral
difference between a human hunting a deer from a mountain lion hunting
a deer.

Those who claim otherwise are delusional.




Newsgroups: can.general
From: craig@cattnts.canada.ncr.com (Craig Campbell)
Subject: Re: Gun Control Petition
Organization: AT&T / NCR Canada Ltd., Toronto, Canada
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 13:12:35 GMT

In article <schuck.723851042@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>amdunn@mongrel.UUCP (Andrew M. Dunn) writes:

>>If it's not a right, then it can only be either

>>   (a) a privilege
>>or (b) an offense

>There is nothing in the Constitution about eating Pizza,
>therefore it's a privledge or an offense.

According to the GST justification (as I understand it), eating pizza IS
a privledge, so the GST is justified on it.  (1/2 :-))

>Both of the above are ludicrous, but according to your thinking,
>we have no right to do anthing except what is specifically allowed in
>the Constitution, and thats plain wrong.

craig
-- 
Craig Campbell		|	These opinions are entirely the result of a 
Systems Engineer	|	small butterfly crashing into the far side
NCR Canada,		|	of the planet.  Chaos Rules.
an AT&T Company		|	I speak for no one, except, possibly, myself.
Newsgroups: can.general,rec.food.veg
From: g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh)
Subject: Re: meat eaters (was: Re: Gun Control Petition)
Followup-To: rec.food.veg
Organization: University of Toronto Computing Disciplines Facility
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 05:15:45 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.045709.29345@xenitec.on.ca> merce@xenitec.on.ca (Jim Mercer) writes:
>[ another redirect, geez, rosemary, how many groups do you read? ]
>In article g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>In article myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:
>>>That's why I highly encourage you all to go read the literature on what
>>>is a PROPER vegetarian diet. You may want to include some shellfish in
>>>there if you want. 
>>Of course, if you eat shellfish or other animals you are not a vegetarian.
>maybe by your definition.
>
>i know of a number of vegetarians who have small anomalies in their diet,
>like eggs, or shellfish or fish.

Eggs fall within the vegetarian diet, animal flesh of any kind does not.
That is just what the term "vegetarian" means.  I was just clarifying the
term, I was not flaming Michael for eating shellfish.
-- 
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: 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: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:25:13 GMT

[trying to move this thread to talk.politics.animals, again.]
In article <schuck.724449059@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>It's not just a question of practicality, it's a question of ethics.  Is it
>>ethical to harm others just for pleasure?  I don't think sex is a good analogy
>>for meat eating, rape or sadism would be closer.
>
>Rape? I *never* have sex with my food.

I was responding to whoever it was who likened meat for pleasure to sex for
pleasure.
>
>Sadism? I usually wait until the animal is dead before I eat it.
>
Murder and necrophilia, if you prefer

>Vegetarians who think they are more *ethical* because they don't eat
>meat are completely delusional and have a much higher opinion of
>themselves and human beings than is warranted.
>
>It is abnormal and perverse to think eating vegetables instead of meat
>makes one more ethical than a person or animal that eats meat.
>
Do you think someone who sets fire to dogs for fun is being unethical?
In my experience most people are opposed to cruelty to animals.  Vegetarianism
is merely a logical extension of this.

[follow-ups to talk.politics.animals]
-- 
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