HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: silva@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Holly Silva)
Subject: Re: TO ALL CANADIANS
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 23:00:35 GMT

 mark@cita.toronto.edu writes:
>[ Holly Silva, to Anthony Maillard ]
>
>| 	You are the second jerk, M. Maillard, who assumed Sir Laurence
>| Godawful to be an American _despite_ his explicit statement to the contrary.
>
>Before you accuse anybody of jerkdom, it might be worth considering the fact
>that M. Maillard's message may have been composed and sent on its way before
>M. Godfrey's revelation of his true whereabouts arrived at M. Maillard's site.
>
>And, prior to his statement that he's actually in England, the assumption that
>he was in the US was a rather sensible one to make.  He posts, after all, from
>a machine in the "ssc.gov" domain (Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory),
>which is (last I heard) in Texas.
>
	Given that a large proportion of the Canadian posters to
soc.culture.canada are ex-pats posting from US sites this is decidedly
_not_ a rather sensible assumption. They're no doubt, less than thrilled by 
such assumptions of 'guilty until proven innocent'. Beyond that however,
Maillard's post did not merely assume the idiot was posting from the US, he 
assumed the idiot was an American (of the US persuasion). Irrespective 
of assumptions regarding nationality, consigning M. Maillard
to 'jerkdom' could reasonably have been done purely on the basis of the
broad-spectrum viciousness of his posting. I'd copied the worst of it
over into my article; you removed it, along with my lament to the effect
that he'd not be censured by any of his own. I honestly didn't quite
believe that when I wrote it. I stand corrected however. 

>Mark Bartelt                                                      416/978-5619

--
======================================================================
|| Holly Silva			I have nothing terribly clever to say||
|| Applied Earth Sciences	today.  You're in luck.		     ||
|| Stanford University						     ||
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross)
Subject: Re: TO ALL CANADIAN WHO LIVE IN TORONTO!!
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Brock University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:02:04 GMT

godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY) writes:
: 
: You have my sympathy - Canada is an extremely boring and mediocre country, and
: Toronto is extremely cold.  Could you not have chosen an 8 months period
: that did not encompass the whole of winter?
: 
: For sights and lifestyle, cross the border and head south or west.  It's
: much less expensive and has lots of interesting things to see.  East, west
: and North or toronto is just a wasteland.  By the way I am English, not
: American, so this is an entirely objective apraisal!!
: 
: Laurence

Boring?  BORING?! Perhaps.

But consider:  it's preferable to be a little bored than to get caught
in an Uzi's crossfire in New York City or L.A., or kicked in the head a dozen
times by a band of English football thugs in London.  :-)

Seriously, Canada has great compact disk sales, and Mila Mulroney is a babe.
So let's not nit-pick.

By the way, Laurence, your native England isn't the worlds most exciting
country -- is that why you expatriated?

-- 
Brian Ross                         "I fell into some ice and your scientists 
bross@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca     thawed me! Your modern world frightens and
                                    confuses me!" -- Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: TO ALL CANADIAN WHO LIVE IN TORONTO!!
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 9 Oct 92 20:33:23 GMT

LAURENCE GODFREY (godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov) wrote:
>In article <1992Oct9.065258.12434@schbbs.mot.com>, RNM192@paccvm.corp.mot.com (Irene Pan)    writes...
>>I will move to Canada just in few weeks from Japan.  I would appreciate
>>if anyone can tell me more about Canada.  Since I will be living in
>>Toronto for only eight months, I would like to know something like where
>>to shop , where to go for sightseeing and the lifestyle in Toronto.
>>I would also like to know which church I can go on Sunday since I won't
>>have a car while I stay in Toronto.
>>Please send those information to me through EMail.
>>Thanks in advance!
>> 
>
>
>You have my sympathy - Canada is an extremely boring and mediocre country, and 
>Toronto is extremely cold.  Could you not have chosen an 8 months period
>that did not encompass the whole of winter?

Vancouver is even more boring, mediocre, and cold than TO. Please do not
even *think* about visiting, let alone moving here.

:-)
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:7467 can.politics:8399
From: smith@minerva.harvard.edu (Steven Smith)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Individual Rights in the U.S. Constitution
Date: 14 Oct 92 13:45:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: minerva.SMITH.92Oct14084551
	<1bandsINNnca@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> <1992Oct13.163959.17375@bmerh85.bnr.ca>
	<1bfh8qINN2jh@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> <WARKENT.92Oct14111145@ltisun14.epfl.ch>
Distribution: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Organization: Harvard Robotics Lab, Harvard University

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

> Anyone know how women were granted the right to vote?  Did the framers
> of the law find a way to do so without mentioning women?

Amendment XIX:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied
or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.

Proposed June 4, 1919.
Ratified August 26, 1920.
From: sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Yes = ? No = ?
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:30:56 GMT
	<BvnGnE.ICp@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> <1992Oct5.171702.7751@cs.sfu.ca>
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal

>>>>> On Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:17:02 GMT, jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) said:

  >      I think the question in Quebec should have been "do
  > you  believe  that Canada should  NOT be  renewed on the
  > basis of the  Charlottetown  accord"... since Quebeckers
  > seem to vote "NO" on everything.  :-)

Not  so.   In  an  election Quebecers can't vote  NO because
there's never  a candidate named NO.  And in the referendum,
most Quebecers will not vote NO.  They  will either vote OUI
or  NON, and a few will  vote NO (e.g.  S.  Potter) and some
will vote YES (e.g. Libman). :-)

--
  ,                          ,                           ,
Stephane Boucher, ing. jr. | Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca        | Tel: (514)340-5950
sbo@info.polymtl.ca        | Fax: (514)340-4078
From: gds@casper.cs.uct.ac.za (Riel Smit)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Registration for the Referendum from outside the country
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:43:54 GMT
Reply-To: gds@cs.uct.ac.za
Organization: Computer Science Department, University of Cape Town

cpaulse@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Chris D Paulse) writes:

>How do I register for the referendum from here in Ohio?

Can Canadians residing outside Canada (even permanently) also vote 
in this referendum?
-- 
Riel Smit,  Computer Science                              gds@cs.uct.ac.za
University of Cape Town                      gds%cs.uct.ac.za@rain.psg.com
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Constitutional powers
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:40:36 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <1992Oct12.111127.24674@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>In article <Bw02JD.5zB.1@cs.cmu.edu> clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>>
>> Here's a tricky question for you net.constitutional experts:
>>
>>
>> What are the powers/responsibilities of the Prime Minister of Canada,
>> as outlined in the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Constitution Act,
>> 1982?
>
>If it is anything like the 1867 B.N.A. Act, Cabinet, Ministers and the Prime
>Minister do not exist in law. They are conventions....no legal entities.
>
I believe Steve is basically right.  The various Constitution Acts
do not mention the PM, other ministers, or Cabinet.  The BNA Act
does mention the "Queen's Privy Council for Canada", of which
the Cabinet is a subset.

However, the Prime Minister and other ministers must have *some*
legal existence, since they are paid a salary above the usual back-
bench MP's salary.  There must be some law specifying who is
a minister and how much he/she is to be paid.

One of the provisions of the Ch'town Accord is that Senators may not
be Cabinet ministers, so I guess the Cabinet will gain a constitutional
existence if the accord is passed.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,soc.culture.europe
From: rana@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Nabeel Ahmad Rana)
Subject: Looking for AHMADI MUSLIM netters!
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 03:04:25 GMT




Dear Friends:

This posting is addressed to AHMADI MUSLIM netters. If you are an Ahmadi and have access to this network, please respond to the bellow e-mail address:

rana@rintintin.colorado.edu

Include you full name, your profession, the name of your Jamaat if any, and any other details you might want to provide in order to introduce your self. I am an Ahmadi student at the Univerisity of Colorado, Boulder. 



Sincerly,

Nabeel Ahmad Rana
E-mail: rana@rintintin.colorado.edu

Electrical and Computer Engineering;
University of Colorado, Boulder,
Colorado.


Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:7540 can.politics:8502
From: rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: What if it's No-No?
Date: 15 Oct 92 13:05:19 GMT
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

In article <Bw2EEw.17s@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>Stewart Clamen (clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU) wrote:
>: 
>: CSQ  NO - Quebec NO: People will put the constitution on the back
>: 		     burner for a while, but the next round would
>: 		     see Quebec demanding status as an autonomous
>: 		     region, or as an independent country.
>: 
>
>If there is a NO vote, the constitution will NOT be on the back burner. We
>will be scrambling to come up with a new deal. However, the people with a
>political mandate will be
>--
>Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca

  I always liked the clarity and logic of those who believe that NO-NO
means we can forget about the whole issue and get back to the previous
status quo and bread and butter issues like fixing the economy with one 
of the major economic blocs boycotting all economic meetings and native 
Canadians erecting barriers on major highways and bridges.

  They then tell us how this agreement will fragment the national psyche
and restrict mobility and free flow of goods and services if passed.

  Kidneys, kidneys ... (says the politically challenged pointing somewhat
in the direction of his frontal lobes) :-).
---- 
Ross W. Wetmore - (416)922-1937 x259    | RFC822net: rossw@scocan.sco.COM
SCO Canada Inc, Toronto, Ont, Canada.   | UUCP:{uunet,utcsri}!scocan!rossw
<std.disclaimer>
----
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: RNM192@paccvm.corp.mot.com (Irene Pan)
Subject: Re: TO ALL CANADIAN WHO LIVE IN TORONTO!!
Organization: Motorola
Date: 12 Oct 1992 08:30:27 HKT

THANKS TO THOSE PEOPLE WHO WERE GIVING ME INFORMATION ABOUT TORONTO.
I WAS GOING TO ANSWER SOME QUESTION FROM SOME OF YOU, HOWEVER I AM HAVING
TROUBLE TO SEND OUT A POST TO SPECIFIC PERSON.  I WILL APPRECIATE IF ANY
ONE CAN TEACH ME USING EMAIL.
   *****************************************************************
IRENE

Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: smith@minerva.harvard.edu (Steven Smith)
Subject: Re: TO ALL CANADIAN WHO LIVE IN TORONTO!!
Organization: Harvard Robotics Lab, Harvard University
	<1992Oct9.203220.3156@mdivax1.uucp>
	<1992Oct9.164932.17993@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:16:36 GMT

Given the sensitivity of Torontonians about the image of their city,
this is all too much for me to resist.  Despite the strident and
obnoxious tone of the original post, there is a grain of truth in it.
I think Toronto is certainly a pleasant city, but somewhat sterile.
Personally, I prefer the dirty vitality of Chicago.  The last time I
was in Toronto, I was accompanied by a mathematician from New York.
He said Toronto reminded him of a greatly enlarged version of
Pietermeritzburg, which by his description is a small, provincial, and
very unexciting town in the South African hinterlands.

Steven Smith
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: dbowman@warp (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: I was going to vote yes, BUT NOW ....
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:01:27 GMT

Peter Bartlett (uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk) wrote:
: dbowman@warp (Don A. Bowman) writes [re women senators]:
: 
: >Actually, this is not in the Accord at all. This is a separate promise that
: >Bob Rae has made to Ontario, and Mike Harcourt made to BC. It is actually not
: >to do with Charlottetown, it arose during the negotiations.
: >We don't know how this system will work. Nobody has come up with a reasonable
: >way to achieve it. Some options are
: 
: >1) women elect women senators
: >2) everyone votes twice, once for male, once for female
: >3) equal women/men candidates, let public decide
: 
: >I am for 3)
: 
: Thanks; this is starting to make some sense.  But does it mean that the
: method of appointment/election of senators is not going to be specifically
: written into the constitution?  As a lawyer, that strikes me as a rather
: bizarre outcome, and as someone trying to follow the politics, I find it
: hard to believe that the west would go for "unwritten rules" as to the
: appointment of senators (that's what we have now, after all!).

You have basically found a thorn in the deal. The appointment of senators
will still be allowed, appointed by the provincial legislature only. Every
province but Quebec has indicated the people will directly elect senators,
though no method has yet been specified. I surmise that Quebec will fairly
soon come to this method too, since Quebecers would (I imagine) rather elect
their senators also.

: 
: Or is it expected that a different system of election will be in effect
: in each province?  Surely what in fact will happen is Ontario and BC will
: use what in my Globe and Mail Draft is labelled section 7 paragraph 1, and
: elect senators within the legislatures, using their majorities in their
: assemblies to get the result they want?
: 

No, I think we will see the same system in each province -- the provincial
legislatures will, once elections of senators start, be unable to prevent
them as the electorate will demand them.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Registration for the Referendum from outside the country
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:21:39 GMT

In article <BvtAH7.JwL@casper.cs.uct.ac.za> gds@cs.uct.ac.za writes:
>cpaulse@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Chris D Paulse) writes:
>
>>How do I register for the referendum from here in Ohio?
>
>Can Canadians residing outside Canada (even permanently) also vote 
>in this referendum?

In general, Canadians outside Canada cannot vote unless they in
the armed forces or on a foreign posting at a embassy.  I not
sure what the exact rules are.

However, since the Quebec referendum is being held under Quebec law,
they have recently opened up their voter eligibility to ex-patriate
Quebeckers, but then again, I don't know exactly what the rules are.

Gerald


Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: sysmark@helios.physics.utoronto.ca (Mark Bartelt)
Subject: Re: TO ALL CANADIAN WHO LIVE IN TORONTO!!
Reply-To: mark@cita.toronto.edu
Organization: University of Toronto Physics/Astronomy/CITA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:25:26 GMT

[ Gary Dare ]

| All sarcasm aside, could you tell us about where you live now?  Just 
| a friendly enquiry, because maybe you were in euro-urban areas and
| that's not everybody's cup of tea ... your Organization field says
| you're out in the suburban Bay Area somewhere  [ ... ]

Actually, based on the "Organization:" line, I had assumed the guy was in
Texas.  (That is, after all, where the Superconducting Super Collider will
be built.)

As it turns out, Mr. Godfrey has informed me that he is in London (England,
not Ontario!).

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

"Sheep not busy being shorn are busy frying" - Dylan, at a NZ lamb barbecue
            [ singing "It's all right, ma (I'm only bleating)" ]
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: 890091b@ace.acadiau.ca (HEIDI JILL BURKHOLDER)
Subject: Re: What if it's No-No?
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 03:30:19 GMT



> The triple NO scenario...a Quebec NO, a BC-Alta-Man NO, and an overall
> NO is the only way the country is going to come out of this thing
> unified.  A double NO...a Quebec NO, and one Western NO, might be
> almost as good.


	Out of curiosity, why is a unified "no" said to consist of Quebec 
and the west? A unified no in my books is a no from coast to coast. Just 
because Que. and B.C. have a large voter base doesn't mean they represent 
Canada. Atlantic Canada may have been polled to say "yes", but a lot of us 
are voting "no", perhaps more than the pollers know. The east is not 
Ontario, and they could have a significant no vote as well.
	I would like to see us remain unified, but if not, perhaps it's time 
to let Quebec out of the sandbox and explore the rest of the playground - 
dark corners and bullies included!
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews)
Subject: Re: I was going to vote yes, BUT NOW ....
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:11:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct06.224026.38189@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk> uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk (Peter Bartlett) writes:
> But does it mean that the
>method of appointment/election of senators is not going to be specifically
>written into the constitution?

     It seems to be that way.

>Or is it expected that a different system of election will be in effect
>in each province?  Surely what in fact will happen is Ontario and BC will
>use what in my Globe and Mail Draft is labelled section 7 paragraph 1, and
>elect senators within the legislatures, using their majorities in their
>assemblies to get the result they want?

     Probably... and in Quebec as well.  I suspect that as time
goes on, senates elected by the legislatures will become more
and more unpopular, and more and more of an election issue in
the individual provinces.  Thus the provinces will go, one after
another, to senates elected directly by the people.

     Quebec might hold out longer, on the theory that senators
elected by members of the National Assembly would be less likely
to be under the control of the federal political parties.

     On the other hand, maybe all provincial parties will become
so enamoured of being able to reward their own political hacks
with Senate spots that they will resist direct elections.  Power
corrupts.

--Jamie.
  jamie@cs.sfu.ca
"Standard brain-toy bullet list for any GnuAge grokabilly shopping trip"
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: Individual Rights in the U.S. Constitution
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 20:56:23 GMT

In article <SMITH.92Oct16093214@gramian.harvard.edu> smith@gramian.harvard.edu (Steven Smith) writes:
>
>Again:  Many people were citizens.  They enjoyed all freedoms and
>protections of the Constitution.  Not all of them enjoyed the right to
>vote.  The Fourteenth Amendment extended the franchise to all males of
>at least twenty-one years in age.


Felons and convicts have the same rights as everybody else (and that includes
no right to commit a crime without expecting punishment). 

I cannot follow your logic above:
 You say citizens all enjoyed the freedoms and protections (I assume
the freedom to vote is one of them.)
You say one of the amendments defined citizen
as any born/naturalized person... and that included women as citizens.

The 14th does NOT refer to only males. It refers to all citizens.
ANd citizens are defined earlier to include females.
So why the need for the women amendment?

Frank.

Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross)
Subject: Re: Could Charlottetown happen in the US?
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Brock University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 13:47:48 GMT

farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell (Droopy)) writes:
: (for an American anyways). Anyways, I was wathcing last
: night a CBC special on the week (?) in which the Charlottetown
: treaty was negotiated and I thought the whole process was
: fascinating. I was amazed how civil the premiers were to
: each other. Bourrassa, Rae, Obeid Mercredi all seemed civil
: to each other even despite their differences. [...]
: Being an American,
: I was expecting a process like that to be acrimonious and
: squabblesome but they all acted like leaders... something we
: Americans sorely lack. 

Hmmm. I watched the same programs, and got the impression that
the premiers and feds are egotistic, squabbling children.  For example,
Rae invited Harcourt and Romanow to dinner, and ended up having a
tantrum and storming away, leaving them with the bill.  Or when
Clark made political threats to Romanow.  No, Canadian politicians 
have all the generic traits found in their American cousins, and
everywhere else for that matter.

-- 
Brian Ross                         "How do we arrange lures in our tackle box?
bross@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca     From left to right, according to size and 
                                    frequency of use." -- Anal-Retentive Chef.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:7426 can.politics:8340
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: What if it's No-No?
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:47:20 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Stewart Clamen (clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU) wrote:
: 
: CSQ  NO - Quebec NO: People will put the constitution on the back
: 		     burner for a while, but the next round would
: 		     see Quebec demanding status as an autonomous
: 		     region, or as an independent country.
: 

If there is a NO vote, the constitution will NOT be on the back burner. We
will be scrambling to come up with a new deal. However, the people with a
political mandate will be

1) Jacques Parizeau
2) Preston Manning
3) Sharon Carstairs
4) Trudeau
5) COR
6) Judy Rebick

When they reach agreement, and my grandchildren see it, it may be good. Who
knows?

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
From: carl.camurca@travel.com (Carl Camurca) 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.misc
Subject: Perots Economic Plan
Date: 15 Oct 92 00:21:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Travel Online / St. Louis Online - St. Louis, MO
Reply-To: carl.camurca@travel.com (Carl Camurca) 

Mess' by Jon Noring

JN>------->   VOTE FOR PEROT IN '92

Same as voting for Hitler. This man has a problem with basic human
rights.

 * OLX 2.1 TD * Without fools ther would be no wisdom.