HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: 4224_5201@uwovax.uwo.ca (John LaRocque)
Subject: Re: Gun Control Petition
Organization: University of Western Ont, London
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 04:14:05 GMT

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.

> 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.

It's easy. All they ever do is shop for that mush they call babyfood. Then
they plop it in a pile of lettuce and call it a healthy meal! And they
never grow up either.

>>and who
>>question the legitimacy of hunting and keeping livestock.  
> 
> So? Breatharians questioned the legitimacy of food, but they were liars.

Here is a proposition: starve to death. That ways you never hurt anybody
living, and in several weeks, we never hear from you either. The world is
already full of people anyways, and all of these communists blame the
poor third world when it is consumerist New Age communist North Americans
who have been the problem all along. That is right: you are to blame

>>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.

I always loved that hunting home video from Detroit's Mad Man of Motor
City, Ted Nugent. He fell on his knees and said a prayer for the poor
animals, then got up and shot some more. Now that's a man with style.


As for vegetarians, gun control advocates, censorship groups, "concerned
citizens", welfare activists, "race relations" reverse-racists, and 
all others who actually think that imposing their ideas on everybody
else is a good idea, heed my words:

There is no preplanned order for the world; don't impose one on
me or you may wind up very very sorry. As John Rambo, that great American
patriot and freedom fighter said, "I'm comin' to get you".

-- 

John P. LaRocque
vader@uwo.ca
University of Western Ontario
London, Ontario


"Urk..urk..."
"Apology accepted, Captain Needa", Darth Vader
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
From: CZ94 <CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA>
Subject: Henry VIII (was Re: Lead news stories...)
Organization: McGill University
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 20:33:03 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.132110.29282@newton.ccs.tuns.ca> gillisad@newton.ccs.tuns.ca (Allan D. Gillis) writes:
>
>
>So what was Henry VIII doing on the throne?  I thought he invented divorce, and
>he was allowed to stick around.
>
Four of Henry's six wives were definitely not divorced.  Anne Boleyn
(#2) and Catherine Howard (#5) were beheaded.  Jane Seymour (#3) died
in childbirth.  Catherine Parr (#6) outlived him.

In the case of Catherine of Aragon (#1), Henry's argument was that they
were never really married.  Catherine had previously been married
to Henry's brother, who had died.  As Henry's sister-in-law,
Catherine was not eligible to marry him, but a papal dispensation
had been granted.  When Henry decided to get rid of her, he claimed
that the pope did not have the power to grant such a dispensation,
so the marriage was null and void.  This led to the break between
Rome and England.

Henry married Anne of Cleves (#4) for purely political reasons, and
took an immediate dislike to her.  The marriage was ended after
just a few months.  I'm not sure whether this was technically considered
to be a divorce or an annulment, or what excuse was invoked.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA

Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
From: tjdoran@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (DORAN TJ - BIOLOGY)
Subject: Re: Monetary "theory"
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 05:14:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.163506.16867@csi.uottawa.ca> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>
>Yes, the monetary system does run on "faith."  If people decide that for
>one reason or another they don't trust the banks, and make a "run" on
>the money, banks WILL fail, and a lot of the money will be lost.  More
>importantly, the entire economy would grind to a halt because there
>wouldn't be enough money in the system.
>
>Welcome to the real world!
>
>-- 
>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

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.   

-- 
TJ Doran  	              |"There you stand like a duck in a thunderstorm
TJDORAN@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca | again... Aren't you ever going to understand?" 
                              |                         - W.A. Mozart
Xref: sparky can.general:6101 can.politics:10963 talk.politics.animals:10469
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Eating killed animals (was Re: Gun Control Petition)
Date: 20 Dec 92 19:52:57 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <1992Dec20.185357.3931@bmerh85.bnr.ca> myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:
>viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>
>>g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>
>>>And the poster who wrote an idyllic fantasy about the lives lead by beef
>>>cattle doesn't?  I think once more people find out what really is going on
>>>on farms and how unnecessary eating meat is, meat consumption will decline
>>>even further.
>
>> It might, Rosemany, but your posts certainly aren't informing people
>>of what is "really" going on.  Strange thing, that.
>
>Please be specific, Dan Sorenson.
>Which part of Rosemary's post is misleading?
>
>> I grew up on a farm outside Woodbine, Iowa, population ~1000; I am in
>>the middle of farm and cattle country, and I have *never* seen what you
>>regurgitate in these posts.  I also left the farm for an education, and have
>>no desire to return to farming in any way or form, so I've no vested interest.
>
>Be specific, please. Tell us what you saw, not what you didn't see.
>Tell us how the cattle were castrated, then. Tell us whether they had
>their horns removed, and how. You may not have seen the exact method
>described by Rosemary used with your own eyes. Tell us what methods you
>did see used, to achieve the same end result then.
>
>You'd be more convincing if you refuted Rosemary's argument point by
>point like this:
>
>      Rosemary: I learned that this method was used to achieve this.
>      Dan:      I saw this alternate method used to achieve the same.
>
>OK? Now, please post another follow-up that's more substantive to your
>present one. Thank you.
>
Dan did exactly what you (Michael) ask of him in a posting in
talk.politics.animals.  He also referred to this posting in his
posting to can.*, a reference which you deleted.  Dan's
posting in t.p.a is well worth reading.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
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 22:44:46 GMT

In article <schuck.724456188@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>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.
If that group is available at your site and you want to debate this subject,
perhaps you should subscribe to it.

>>In article <schuck.724449059@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>>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.

It's an analogy.  
>
>Necrophilia? You have sex on the brain.
>
I didn't start the sex analogy, a previous poster did.

>>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?
>
>>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.

Debateable.  In the SPCA's case euthanasia may be considered to be the lesser
of two evils, but that doesn't make it good.  Meat-eating is hardly analogous,
since it is not the lesser of two evils, it is an unnecessary evil.
>
>A sledgehammer blow to the head or a high speed bullet to the brain
>causes little or no pain and is not cruelty.

Do you think it would be acceptable to kill people if done humanely?

>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.

*No* cruelty is an impossible ideal, alas.  I am advocating eliminating as
much cruelty as we can.
-- 
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: leffler@physics.ubc.ca (Steve Leffler )
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: ?SENDING SASE CANADA TO U
Date: 16 Dec 1992 21:37:11 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.ubc.ca

cal@ee.ryerson.ca (Calvin Henry-Cotnam) writes:

>I do not believe that it is illegal to send cash through the mails,
>neither here in Canada nor the US.

>We are always told never to send cash through the mails, but this
>is a recommendation, not a law.  The reason is common sense, there
>is no tracing cash -- if it is lost or stolen, it's gone.

   But, if Canada Post notices money in an envelope, they may open it, remove
the cash, and replace it with a postal money order equal to the amount of
cash minus the service charge for money orders.

				     ---Steven Leffler
					leffler@physics.ubc.ca

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 22:49:39 GMT

In article <H.eg.5BBNIAKRKcY@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca> jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca (John Henders) writes:
>In <BzF1Ko.CqG@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> tjdoran@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca 
>	(TJ Doran) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Dec17.071207.20954@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
>	golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>>
>>>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). 
>
>>But what is more important? The opinions of Canadians on the future of Canada
>>or the opinion of foreigners?
>
>	Agreed. The above has to be one of the lamest reasons for voting
>I've ever heard. Should voters who really beleive the Conservatives are
>doing a bad job of governing really have to vote for them because the
>international financial community want's it? Maybe they should just
>govern the country for us and save us the cost of those messy elections
>anyway. After all, with the Conservatives in power, they're already
>running things anyway, and look what a good job they're doing for us.
>

Another Liberal or NDP spending binge, and the international financial
community WILL step in the govern the country for us and impose a
brutal austerity program that will make the Tories somewhat haphazard
austerity seem like timid.

We are one spending binge away from being Italy, and much more than
that and we become an IMF basket case.

The more debt we accumulate, the more sovereignty we surrender...

...we either impose austerity, an enlightened austerity, on ourselves,
or we not are far from having a brutal one imposed on us.


Gerald
Newsgroups: can.general,talk.politics.animals
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: Tue, 15 Dec 92 22:32:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.185428.28611@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>[follow-ups to t.p.a]
>In article <1992Dec15.064520.22393@xenitec.on.ca> merce@xenitec.on.ca (Jim Mercer) writes:
>>soybeans and grains are basically pretty boring, 
>Food is as boring or as interesting as you make it.  The herbs, spices, and
>other condiments that make food more interesting are almost all vegan.

Here in Ottawa, The Green Door is an excellent vegan restaurant, with
certain items containing dairy products, all clearly marked (i.e. their
fabulous cheese cakes). It's actually a price by weight self serve
place, and for about $10 I stuff myself full of the excellent food.

I do eat out a lot, especially dinners, and I try a lot of different
restaurants. Biologically, I feel the most contented after eating vegan
food at The Green Door.

Also, there are vegan cooking classes here in Ottawa. That way, you can
try out a lot of stuff, and learn how to make them all in the process.
-- 
Michael MY Hui  ~{~}  myhui@bnr.ca  Ottawa Canada
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 19:50:59 GMT

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.

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

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.

Humans are animals.

We eat meat.

That is normal.

It is abnormal and perverse to think eating vegetables instead of meat
makes one more ethical than a person or animal that eats meat.
From: mcooper@unixg.ubc.ca (Dr. Michael Cooper)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: Good Canadian wines for Xmas (don't Laugh)
Date: 14 Dec 92 05:11:43 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia
Distribution: can
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

Jonathan,
Coming from the wine belt (Okanagan Valley) in BC I can recommend several good Canadian wines but I don't know if they are distributed across Canada:
	Gehrenger Brothers - Pinot Auxerois; Ehrenfelser
	Sumac Ridge - Chancellor (red)
	Grey Monk - Pinot Auxerois
Cheers

--Mike Cooper
  mcooper@unixg.ubc.ca
Xref: sparky can.general:6054 can.politics:10882
From: jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca (John Henders)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
Distribution: na
Organization:  One of these days for sure
X-News: HERMES MMAIL 1.10 Rev. Nov 25 1992
Subject: Re: Monetary "theory"
	<BzE17K.K8o@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>
	<1992Dec17.071207.20954@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
	<BzF1Ko.CqG@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:02:22 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In <BzF1Ko.CqG@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> tjdoran@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca 
	(TJ Doran) writes:

>In article <1992Dec17.071207.20954@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
	golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>
>>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). 

>But what is more important? The opinions of Canadians on the future of Canada
>or the opinion of foreigners?

	Agreed. The above has to be one of the lamest reasons for voting
I've ever heard. Should voters who really beleive the Conservatives are
doing a bad job of governing really have to vote for them because the
international financial community want's it? Maybe they should just
govern the country for us and save us the cost of those messy elections
anyway. After all, with the Conservatives in power, they're already
running things anyway, and look what a good job they're doing for us.


-- 

 "If Rush fans were braindead, why are there so   Bruce Bufalini
 many people posting to alt.music.rush?"              PSU
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: eah@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew)
Subject: Re: Latest evil Canada Post plot
Organization: XeniTec Consulting, Kitchener, Ontario, CANADA
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 05:53:59 GMT

In article <charles.724433448@menaik> charles@cs.UAlberta.CA (Charles Jobagy) writes:
>>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.

Wouldn't the postal Unions have a problem with a combination of
lower pay and coincidental increased performance expectations?
--
  Ed. A. Hew,    <edhew@xenitec.on.ca>    ....!uunet.ca!xenitec!eah
  XeniTec Consulting Services, Kitchener ON, Canada +1 519 570 9848
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 23:52:46 GMT

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, and who
question the legitimacy of hunting and keeping livestock.  Even human beings
who do eat dead animals have been known to question the legitimacy of hunting.
-- 
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: Re: Snow in Vancouver (was Re: GOOD CANADIAN WINES FOR X)
Date: 18 Dec 1992 18:12:35 GMT
Organization: University Computing Services, UBC, Canada
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: swiss.ucs.ubc.ca

In article <1gs05iINN7rg@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> ramsay@math.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay) writes:
>In article <940.7.uupcb@compdyn.questor.wimsey.bc.ca> 
>jaz.johol@compdyn.questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Jaz Johol)  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.

 This morning, the temperature in Vancouver was -6.  At my altitude,
 about 100m, in North Vancouver we still have the crusted remains,
 a few cm thick, of a snowfall three days ago, and I expect it to
 stick around a few days more.  Moscow and St. Petersburg were both
 warmer than Vancouver yesterday.  Our _average_ Winter weather,
 on the other hand, is something else again, and would fully justify
 a somewhat understated version of Jaz Johol's enthusiasm.
Xref: sparky can.general:5901 ns.general:98
From: pking@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: can.general,ns.general
Subject: Re: Lead news stories...
Date: 11 Dec 92 13:43:08 -0400
Distribution: can,ns
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <Bz24yw.Dqs@cs.dal.ca>, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) 
writes:
>                                                                    [T]he
> british monarchy is perhaps the most expensive form of entertainment known
> to man. They have little political purpose, yet serve as a media of
> entertainment for millions upon millions of people.
 
A monarch who is respected ("loved" would be even better) by most of her (or
his) subjects commands an allegiance on which the partisan politicians who
form successive governments draw.  Providing this kind of emotional capital is 
such a monarch's _de_facto_ political purpose.  One might argue that the 
presence of this queen throughout the dismantling of the British Empire and the
UK's adjustment to a position of diminished political and economic importance 
after the Second Great Hate (WW II) minimized the effect of that process on 
Britons' collective psyche.  (One might also argue that the UK would have been
better off in the long run had this _not_ been the case.) 

As far as the expensiveness of the royal family is concerned, I'll leave it as
an exercise for those who like to model national economies to tell us whether
the British monarchy's tourist-attraction value makes maintaining it cost-
effective.  

>    steve
> -- 
> aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
> sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
> qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
> zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA

peter
<Ain't got a .sig; hell, ain't even got a .clue>
Newsgroups: can.general,talk.politics.animals