HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: achan@hannah.enet.dec.com ()
Subject: Looking for UofT's number...
Reply-To: achan@hannah.enet.dec.com ()
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:00:55 GMT


Hi,

I'm desperately seeking the Telephone number of University of Toronto's
Registrar's office.  I need to ask them to send a copy of my transcript
to an Institution here in U.S.

You can send to me directly  "achan@hannah.enet.dec.com".

Any help is appreciated.

Regards,

Aston
Newsgroups: can.general
From: remilld@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Jason Remillard)
Subject: E-Mail addresses of Ontario Government?
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 21:24:53 GMT

Hello Netters:



	Does anyone know of E-Mail addresses of Ontario Government
personnel.  I would like to contact my old boss in Dryden, Ontario...


	Is there a gateway I have to go through??



		Any ideas?


		Thanks.

Jason L M Remillard	   		remillard@ceddwntwn.lan1.umanitoba.ca
University of Manitoba				  --   or  --
MicroLab Assistant
Winnipeg, Manitoba				remilld@ccu.umanitoba.ca

Newsgroups: can.general
From: skenny@pico.engr.mun.ca (Shawn Kenny)
Subject: Re: Water Polo in Ste. Foy Question
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:16:20 GMT

I was watching (with great delight) a water polo match on CBC French the
past Saturday and I have a few questions. Is this the World's
Championship or just an international invitational (I assume the
former)? The game I saw was Canada 6 Holland 8. What is the record of
The Candian team? I looked for more on Sunday but didn't catch any.
*sigh* Are there any more games to be played?? or was that the finals?
Thanks in advance.

Shawn
--
=================================
skenny@pico.engr.mun.ca
St. John's, NF, CANADA
"Have a touton or do without'n !"
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: ph3@unixg.ubc.ca (Michael Hamilton (phys 306))
Subject: Re: Election sun rising
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:21:37 GMT

In <wHH9PB4w165w@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca> yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:

>Hi again.  excuse me while I hypothesize.

>There may not be a referendum as Mulroney's mandate is almost up.  I believe an
>election is near, and that the PM would use the constitutional issue to get us
>sidetracked.  What do you think?

>Opinions? nukes? knives?

I do not think he would dare risk the loss of a Good Deal(TM) on an election
when he is so unpopular. It's like Mr. Rae has suggested, in a referendum
people can vote yes to the deal, even thought it's obvious that (Name Here)'s
politics stink.

Mike.
Xref: sparky can.general:4279 can.politics:6430 soc.culture.canada:6278
From: mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Election sun rising
Date: 4 Sep 92 03:30:01 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada

My predictions: no election until fall 1993, by which time Mulroney will have
stepped down and Kim Campbell or Barbara McDougall will be leader of the
Conservatives. The Liberals will be all but wiped out, picking up just a few
Atlantic seats. BQ will do well in Quebec, and Reform will get more seats than
any other party, although not a majority. Then the NDP and the Conservatives
will form a coalition government, supported by the Liberals.

Mathew Englander.
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: labach@acs.ucalgary.ca (Terence Michael Labach)
Subject: Re: zundel
Originator: labach@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:16:06 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: The Bobby Jurasin Fan Club

In article <1992Sep1.709.6541@dosgate> "steve hartwell"
<steve.hartwell@canrem.com> writes: 
> TM>Yes!  Censorship is both a crude weapon and a bad substitute for
> TM>> Fight lies with truth
> TM>> and better ideas, not with censorship.
> 
> I never thought that anything could make me feel so ill, so sick,
> as to be losing Canada to the United States,
> Until I saw a picture of triumphant Zundel, and his brown shirts,
> in the newspaper, with Canadian Flags on their shoulders.
> 
> The possibility that Canada would be lost to Nazis, is worse.
> I say - to protect Freedom of Speech, and Democracy, rule in favour
> of the appealer - Zundel - based on his appeal.
> Then take 'em all out and shoot the sons of bitches.

Funny, that's the sort of thing a Nazi would say about his opponents.
And you really think you're taking the moral high road?  

Respecting freedom of speech is a long way from allowing Canada to
be run by Nazis.  And a lying jackass like Zundel is hardly a
threat to the security of the country.

- terry -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I myself an a free man only insofar as I recognize the humanity and
 liberty of all the men who surround me.  In respecting their humanity I
 respect my own."
 - Mikhail Bakunin
Newsgroups: can.general
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: zundel
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 15:27:26 GMT

In article <sbuckley.714978223@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>  well i just saw knowlton nash.  on the national tonight, i saw that
>the supreme court has freed ernst zundel.  it seems it's a higher good
>to be able to say anything anyone wants regardless of its repurcussions.
>free speech is the greater moral than truth.  i'm pretty shocked.
>if anybody thinks this is a good ruling, can you please tell me why?

To quote from the lyrics of Jesus Christ Superstar (amazing what
sticks in my memory, really :-) ):

   But what is truth?
   Is truth unchanging law?
   We both have truths,
   Are mine the same as yours?

I'd say the only path to truth IS free speech.  It is censorship that
will block truth, not free speech (unless, of course, you happen to
absolutely agree with the censor).

The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Xref: sparky can.general:4215 can.politics:6273 soc.culture.canada:6169
From: yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Election sun rising
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:30:43 GMT
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems #3, Edmonton, AB, Canada

Hi again.  excuse me while I hypothesize.

There may not be a referendum as Mulroney's mandate is almost up.  I believe an
election is near, and that the PM would use the constitutional issue to get us
sidetracked.  What do you think?

Opinions? nukes? knives?

Dave Shariff Yadallee (yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca,
userLIBE@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca)
God Save the Queen, God Bless us All! Remember! Jesus Saves!!
cowboy (n): A 20th Century extension of  the neanderthal caveman.
From: hans@Software.Mitel.COM (Hans Johnsen)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: Zundel
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:58:32 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

dkmiller@unixg.ubc.ca (Derek K. Miller) writes:

>Zundel was charged under the "spreading of false news" law, and Keegstra
>under the "promoting hatred" law. They are different, and the Supreme
>Court has ruled that the first is too vague and violates freedom of speech
>provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

I'll just add, in case you think that laws against lying cannot be
abused, that the law was (I'm fairly sure) written to protect the
monarchs from damaging rumours. While this may be a "nice" thing
to do, I think only Dave Yadallee would support a law like that.

By the way, I support hate lit. laws in general (I don't know enough
about ours to say I support it), as I see them as a case of balancing
freedom of speech against equality and security of person. Keegstra
violated my concept of such a law by speaking from a position
of authority, and teaching those whom he had authority over to hate
other people.
-- 
Take off all your clothes and walk down the street waving a machete
and firing an Uzi, and terrified citizens will phone the police and
report: "There's a naked person outside!" - Mike Nichols
Newsgroups: can.general,sci.research.careers
From: tony@nexus.yorku.ca (Anthony Wallis)
Subject: Fabrikant: keeping a moral perspective.
Organization: York University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:04:25 GMT

(From the Mosaic Decalogue)
Thou shalt
  [6]  not murder
  [8]  not steal
  [9]  not give false evidence
  [10] not covet

Our society has a special abhorrence of violations of [6], and maybe
that is rightly so (who would want to argue against it ?).  It is,
indeed, extremely rare for an established academic to murder colleagues
over essentially academic-career concerns.  I know only of this one
case in 30 years of academic life.  However, violations of [10] are not
only daily occurrences in academic life, but are in some sense
structured into the system, reflecting the incorporation of "gown" into
"town".  Temptations to murder are mercifully infrequent, but it is a
continuous struggle not to succumb to the endemic and expected
academically-correct version of covetousness.  Literal legal-definition
violations of [8] and [9] are uncommon, but intellectual stealing and
intellectual giving-of-false-evidence are often as much part of the
infrastructure of our post-secondary institutions as are the campus
sewerage and garbage collection systems.

Perhaps the Mosaic Deity had something divine in mind in not putting
murder into one class of sin and stealing, lying and coveting into
another class.  Our society seems to have done here what God would
not.  It doesn't take much to imagine a distressed alienated mind,
hyper- sensitive to perceived massive violations of [8] [9] and [10],
to fail [6].

What is worse, one murder or a million little lies and deceits ?
To answer that question would, to me, feel like picking up that
first stone.

If Dr. Fabrikant is guilty of murder then he should pay the
penalty.  The underside of the rock he has turned over should
be looked at objectively and dispassionately.

--
tony@nexus.yorku.ca = Tony Wallis, York University, Toronto, Canada

Newsgroups: can.general
From: buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland)
Subject: Re: benefits of driving above the speed limit
Organization: University of B.C. Computing Services
Distribution: can
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 23:27:14 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.151719.19462@imax.imax.com> dave@imax.imax.com (Dave Martindale) writes:
>charlesv@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Charles Van Duren) writes:
>>
>>A study reported in the motor association rag supports your opinion. It
>>was first done in Germany, and then replicated in North America  ...
>> ... [and may or may not have proved that speeding and/or using the
>> natural speed of the road and/or being law-abiding is/are of
>> advantage]

 When the US adopted the 55-mph limit, the 70-mph limit on much of I5
 disappeared.  This turned, for me, the normally two-day trip from
 Vancouver to San Francisco, a not unpopular freeway-all-the-way
 effort for us Lotuslanders, to three days (the third admittedly a
 short day).  So a small difference can be of significance,
 depending on the circumstances, depending on whether or not some
 threshold is crossed.  On a smaller scale, a couple of km/h can
 be the difference between making all the lights and waiting at
 half of them.  Of course, on the other side, a few km/h can, if
 pursued with sufficient vigor, put you over the threshold between
 this world and the next ...
Xref: sparky can.general:4265 can.politics:6396 soc.culture.canada:6253
From: labach@acs.ucalgary.ca (Terence Michael Labach)
Subject: Re: Election sun rising
Originator: labach@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 04:53:18 GMT
	<1992Sep2.200213.26540@pandora.matrox.com>
	<1992Sep4.033001.25657@unixg.ubc.ca>
Organization: The Bobby Jurasin Fan Club

In article <1992Sep4.033001.25657@unixg.ubc.ca> mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander) writes:
> 
> My predictions: no election until fall 1993, by which time Mulroney will have
> stepped down and Kim Campbell or Barbara McDougall will be leader of the
> Conservatives. The Liberals will be all but wiped out, picking up just a few
> Atlantic seats. BQ will do well in Quebec, and Reform will get more
> seats than any other party, although not a majority. Then the NDP and
> the Conservatives will form a coalition government, supported by the
> Liberals. 

Hmmm, and which party do you think the 99% of New Democrats who would
leave the NDP over a coalition would go to?  My chums in Ontario were
badly split about supporting David Peterson - the party couldn't survive
getting in bed with the stinking Tories.

Of course, maybe that's what you want... :-)

- terry -
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: Election sun rising
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 04:57:31 GMT

The NDP has already endorsed a large portion of the constitutional
agreement.  The present Conservative government will not call an
election over that issue.  It will be fought over free trade, where all
the mud slinging can be indulged upon with great panache: right vs
left, protectionism vs open trade, local jobs vs specialization, self
sufficiency vs specialization, government assistance to industry vs no
leadership at all, garbage thrown in someone else's backyard vs
fairness for all no matter what nationality and creed.

I am already looking forward to, and gearing up for, the debate over
the NAFTA.  It'll be hot and sensuous.

If the Democrats win in the USA, it will be even more interesting.

Mulroney's and Joe Clark's "accomplishment" of getting a constitutional
deal will be used to call back every single IOU from the business
community and have them back the Conservatives financially for the
next election.

NDP will get heavy backing from big unions and non-union workers
to defeat or at least modify the NAFTA after the election.

If you think the USA presidential election has more of a black vs white
flavor to the debate this time than at most times past, wait till you
hear the Canadian debate. Rest your fingers now (or loosen them up a
bit by playing a few of Bach's Prelude and Fugue :-).

Things will be hopping by Christmas time.

My prediction: Liberal and NDP coalition government, Chretian as PM,
Conservatives win 3/4 of Quebec seats, NDP vastly increase their seats
in central and mid-western Canada (except in B.C.), Liberals grab most
of Atlantic Canada (but too few seats to matter), Lucien Bouchard
rejoins Conservative party prior to election.

Michael MY Hui          myhui@bnr.ca           Ottawa Canada
Newsgroups: can.general
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Zundel
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 23:54:33 GMT

Terence Michael Labach writes:

>Stephen Buckley writes: 
>> labach@acs.ucalgary.ca (Terence Michael Labach) writes:
>> >He was charged with spreading "false news".  In essence, lying.  I can
>> >think of some circumstances where lying should be against the law, but
>> >this isn't one of them.
>> 
>> what would be such a circumstance?

>How about a nuclear breeder reactor owner assuring his employees that
>plutonium is harmless and that they don't need to waste company money on
>protective gear?  (Admittedly, far-fetched, but you get the drift...)

  yeah, but i'm concerned that our culture now finds historical truth
to be less important to be still grouped in the category for which
lying is wrong.
Newsgroups: can.general
From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Subject: Re: Zundel
Originator: clewis@bcarh1d7
Organization: ?
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:19:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.210730.8830@bcrka451.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>In article <LABACH.92Sep3100704@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca> labach@acs.ucalgary.ca (Terence Michael Labach) writes:

>>Lying about historical truth is wrong. (forgive me if I don't explain
>>why I believe this as it really isn't important to the discussion).
>>What the Zundel case is concerned with is whether lying in such an event
>>should be illegal.

>>Zundel is dangerous and a liar, and we should take every opportunity to
>>explain why he's wrong and demonstrate that his statements come not from
>>the historical record but from his attempt to rewrite history.  But let
>>the government decide what may and may not even be discussed and we have
>>the framework for dictatorship.

The law didn't say that revisionism can't be discussed.  Or that any
other speech, taken in isolation, is illegal.  Just that speech that
has a high enough likelyhood of inciting unrest (violence, criminal
acts) can be stopped.  Which requires taking into account context,
venue, chances for the opposing views etc.

Thus, if Zundel just talked to himself in his own house, no problem.
If he was in a panel discussion with people with opposing views, no
problem.  If he starts generating subliminal messages and inserting
them into beer commercials, then there'd be a likely charge.

>Note the word:  liar.  But is Zundel lying, or does he really believe
>that bullshit?  (Yes, even if he believes it, it's still a sign of a
>twisted mind.)  Can we make it illegal for people to be wrong?

Note the definition of the law that Zundel was originally charged with:

	WILLFULLY spreads FALSE news LIKELY to cause PUBLIC UNREST.

Each of the capitalized words had to be proven to the jury for a conviction.
Ie:
	- the news was false
	- that Zundel knew it
	- that it was likely to cause public unrest.

This was pretty specific.  The "likely" and "public unrest" are both required
by the constitution to make the law have any chance of standing up against
the constitution. The "public unrest" has to be sufficiently serious to
endanger other people's constitution rights.  Ie: be non-trivial.

*STILL* the Supreme Court ruled the law too broad, and struck it down.

So, what are we worried about?

>(I can just see it:  "What's the capital of BC?"  "Uh, Vancouver?"
>"Wrong - call the cops, this kid is spreading false information!"
>;-)

Only if it results in lots of Victorians beating up Vancouverites ;-)
Newsgroups: can.general
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: It has to go in somebody's back yard.
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 02:57:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.233431.20099@unixg.ubc.ca> buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland) writes:
> 
> So why do we insist on a system of asking for volunteers?  Why
> not have a mechanism (on the federal level, since provincial
> governments think of their individual provinces as back yards too)
> for _assigning_ locations for things nobody wants?

If nobody wants them, then shouldn't we try to avoid them entirely?
Shouldn't we focus on producing less garbage, less toxic wastes, less
of whatever people don't want?  I know - people want all the goodies:
lots of electricity and toys, disposable this and that; they just don't
want to pay the full cost of something - heck, just stuff it down
someone else's throat.  HEY, KEEP THAT STUFF AWAY FROM ME!  But if
people don't have to deal with the consequences of their own actions,
why should they behave more responsibly?

Tell you what, Tony.  When I am officially recognized as King of Canada
(or Queen of Canada if that's what makes people happy - after all, in
this day and age we wouldn't insist on sexist rules like allowing only
a woman to be Queen, would we?), when I am ruler of Canada, I'll
mandate that all the things nobody wants should go in your back yard.
That should settle all this awful arguing that's bothering you so
much, shouldn't it?

(A slogan on a t-shirt a while back, quoted from memory:  People say,
throw it out.  But where is OUT?)

The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: can.general
From: davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David Collier-Brown)
Subject: Re: Can an accident occur without someone breaking the law?
Organization: York University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 02:00:30 GMT

buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland) writes:
| I generally think of a highway traffic act as a good example of
| seamless logical consistency, a set of rules that if followed
| without exception by everyone will ensure safety on the roads.
| Note that I said consistent, not necessarily sensible [...]

Sure.  If two or more people make legal but ``cooperative'' errors.

Eg: I slip the clutch whiel driving slowly uphill instead of braking,
and another chap closes to a safe distance for our **previous** speed.
Result: he crushes his grill on my rear bumper.
  
We had to take this to court, of course: the poor cop who saw the
debris believed he **had** to have been following too close.  The
judge and crown attorney knew better.

--dave






-- 
David Collier-Brown,  | davecb@Nexus.YorkU.CA | lethe!dave
72 Abitibi Ave.,      | 
Willowdale, Ontario,  | Stupidity is evil waiting to happen.
CANADA. 416-223-8968  |               -- Clay Bond
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: What are the most dangerous (legal) things to do in traffic?
Date: 1 Sep 92 12:58:48 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1287

From article <3221@isgtec.isgtec.com>, by robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne):
> buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland) writes:
>>  [...]  I was in the leftmost lane and wanted to move one
>>  lane right.  Somebody was just level with me two lanes to the right.
>>  I signalled and moved over; but if the other driver had moved left
>>  at the same time, we would have sideswiped one another.  Every time
>>  I have to make that move, I do it with my heart in my mouth.
> 
> I hate that feeling :-)
> I get into this position almost everyday (thanks to the great jobs the
> road designers have done with the 401/427 intersection) in and there
> just seems to be no way to guarantee the other guy isn't going to come
> into middle lane just as you do.  Especially since half the people out
> there don't use signals.
> 


  Since left lane traffic is normally (supposed to be) travelling
  faster - right lane should give way.

  Problem is: some people don't look where they are going!

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.general,sci.research.careers
From: jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews)
Subject: Fabrikant and Concordia ME's response
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:17:39 GMT

     I have no idea whether Fabrikant's accusations were true.
However, one thing is clear:  people at Concordia Mechanical
Engineering knew he was violent and unstable, and what was their
response?  To give him a medical leave, or to get a court order
to have him committed?

     No, their response was to deny him tenure.  In other words,
to deliver a crushing blow to his research career, while
simultaneously washing their hands of him.  At least, this is
how it appears from all the evidence that I have seen on this
newsgroup and in the other media reports.

     This suggests either that they were extremely insensitive
to his condition, or else that there were some other factors
(other than his instability) which contributed to him being
forced out.  Couldn't have been his research, or his teaching.
What were the factors?

     My apologies if I have missed something here.  Eugene, I
hope you agree that this is relevant to sci.research.careers,
insofar as it is a discussion about how departments do or do
not take care of their employees in research careers.

--Jamie.
  jamie@cs.sfu.ca
"Every \item command in item_list must have an optional argument." LaTeX pg.168
Xref: sparky can.general:4178 soc.culture.canada:6135