HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne)
Subject: Re: Bigger worries than which lane to drive in
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:23:56 GMT

In article <9SEP199218280179@jetson.uh.edu> schieber@jetson.uh.edu (Schieber, Jay D.) writes:
>In article <92Sep9.171307edt.47897@neat.cs.toronto.edu>, mstede@cs.toronto.edu (Manfred Stede) writes...

>>Apart from these procedural matters, it is not clear to me what
>>positive results we can expect from a political union.  The most
>>important goal, as you say, is the preservation of piece; but it
>>seems to me that the already agreed-on economic union will per-
>>fectly accomplish this.  The other possible benefit of doing away
>>with nation states is the elimination of regional/ethnic conflicts,
>>but again I'm not convinced.  The Scottish and Northern-Irish in 
>>the UK, the Basques and Catalonians in Spain, the two linguistic 
>>factions in Belgium, the autonomy-minded Northern-Italians---they 
>>all resist surrendering their powers to national governments.  
>>Would they be more happy when surrendering them to a big, fat 
>>all-European government in Brussels?
>>Arguments?

Speaking as an outsider, it's difficult to imagine economic union without
political union.  It seems that trying to send goods and services across
present national borders with the numerous regulations of each country to
comply with is an economic waste.  It seems that much of the opposition to
union (either political or economic) is the politicians.  Why in Europe does
one need to make 30 different light bulbs to satisfy each country when one
would do just as well?

>Actually, some of these groups feel that their cultural heritage
>will be better protected by an ethnically diverse European parliament 
>than by a single ethnic group who is in power in their country.
>This surprised me too the first time I read it, but it does have
>some soundness to it.  Many of these groups feel oppressed by a
>single powerful ethnic (or economic) group, so they see some protection
>by banding together with a larger group, where each of the members
>is in some sense a minority.

Here, too, I think political union would aid minority groups more than most
people would realize and I suspect the politicians objections are much more
than the individual citizens to union.

Charlie


Newsgroups: sfu.general,sfu.grad,can.general,soc.culture.canada
From: buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland)
Subject: Re: New Constitution text??
Organization: University of B.C. Computing Services
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:53:28 GMT

In article <cs_jh.681.0@cox.nsac.ns.ca> cs_jh@cox.nsac.ns.ca (Dr Jeff Hoyle) writes:
>Is the text for thye new constitutional deal available on Internet?  If so 
>could someone please point me in the right direction?  Thanks
>

 My understanding from this morning's Vancouver Province is that the
 legal text is not available anywhere yet, because is doesn't yet
 exist.  It is still being worked on, the campaign leading up to
 the referendum can start without it, but it will definitely be
 available before the vote (decent of them).
 
 I have no idea whether the legal text is taking so long because
 it's very hard work, or because the Federal Government wants to
 release it at the right psychological moment by some criterion or
 other, or for some other, truly murky reason.
Newsgroups: can.general
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: general.general?
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 23:18:52 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.173632.18486@unixg.ubc.ca> buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland) writes:
> But I have yet to discover any groups like a europe.general,
> world.general or general.general.  Have I missed something; are
> there in fact groups where the state of the world and our lives
> on it are the main subject of discussion?

Those groups do exist. There are many of them. Try:

rec.*
talk.politics.*
misc.*
sci.*
soc.*

Gotta get out of that most un-Canadian cocoon mode and visit other groups!

(that was paraphrasing a Jean Chretian line after he won the Liberal
 leadership ... not that I actually like Jean Chretian one teeny bit. )

Michael MY Hui          myhui@bnr.ca           Ottawa Canada
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Justifications for owning guns?
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 03:41:27 GMT

In article <3248@isgtec.isgtec.com> robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne) writes:
>thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>> merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer) writes:
>> 
>> >Guns don't kill people, criminals kill people.
>> 
>>       ... often with guns.
>
>But more often with fists or knives.

Just for reference, many types of knives are illegal (those more suited
for violence than for legitimate applications).   You tried buying a
switchblade lately?  Do you consider this an unreasonable restriction
of the rights of the people who would like to own such a knife?

There are also laws concerning how knives (and other paraphernalia) can
be carried - try walking into a shopping centre with a machete in your
hand!  And last year, a punk's leather jacket was confiscated as a
dangerous weapon - it was studded with an incredible number of rivets,
needles, screws, nails...  Do you consider this an unreasonable
restriction on this person's right to make a fashion statement?

As for banning fists, well, that's another story!  :-)

>Useless factoids are just that.

Indeed.

The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: can.general,soc.culture.canada
From: merce@xenitec.on.ca (Jim Mercer)
Subject: Re: Justifications for owning guns?
Organization: XeniTec Consulting, Kitchener, Ontario, CANADA
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1992 20:56:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.165102.23841@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> 
masonp@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Peter Mason) writes:
>It would definitely change things.  It would lower the number of people
>killed in crime and violent acts.  The question is, however, 
>'is it worth having our rights infringed upond to do so?' 

that's the right question, and for a large number of people who have no use
for guns, it really wouldn't bother them.

but those of us who legally register, and follow the rules, are gonna
get shafted.

>>>If we allow guns, why exactly don't we allow hand grenades and tanks?
>>
>>oh, don't be absurd.  this is Canada, not the US.
>>
>From where I stand, I really don't see how it is any more absurd.  A hand
>grenade is made for killing people.  In fact, it is not as effective as
>automatic weapons for killing large numbers of people.  The fact that nobody
>lobs handgrenades for sport though means they don't have any defenders.
>Oh, and they are messy.  The psychological ease of killing with a gun
>isn't there with handgrenades.

there are certain type of guns which are restricted from private ownership,
these include anything fully-automatic, and some of the more concealable
handguns.

hand grenades would fall into the same category, there is no justification,
historical or otherwise, for private ownership of high explosives.

>And for those people who believe that "guns don't kill people, people kill
>people", go to your bookstore and look up some anti-gun material.

i explicitly didn't use that phrase, it would have been nice if you included
the context.

>Some people
>are always going to kill, but with guns, it happens more often.  It's the
>ease with which one can kill with a gun that is the biggest problem.
>Again, fewer guns=fewer intentional deaths.  This is a fact. 

i don't disagree with that, i just think that tighter gun control will not
produce a lower number of guns.

it is far too easy to just hop across the border, buy one and stick it under
your seat.

>Criminals can always get guns.  But, when guns are difficult to come by 
>and extremely expensive, the number of criminals who have them does go down.
>And the ones who don't have them are the ones who are 'small time' and break
>into your home.

i don't think so.  as i said above, the lack of US gun control is the biggest
failing of Canadian gun control.

-- 
[ Jim Mercer   Reptilian Research  merce@iguana.reptiles.org  +1 519 893-6085 ]
[             I don't want to work for a company that has a CIO.              ]
[              Disclaimer! I don't need no stinking Disclaimer!               ]
Newsgroups: can.general,soc.culture.canada
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Tragedy at concordia and a net-proposal to prevent furthur incidents
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 04:47:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.022918.28060@mks.com> chris@mks.com (Chris Retterath) writes:
>In article <1992Sep6.022135.18454@bcrka451.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>>Are guns a "social good"?  Will people be gravely impacted in their
>>lives if they're not allowed to own handguns?  (I mean real life, here,
>
>Here where I live the nearest police are >30minutes drive away.
>We have long guns for vermin control (groundhogs, rabid skunks, stray dogs
>in with the sheep), and for 'peace of mind' in case of two-legged vermin :-)

Note the word "handgun" above.  I accept that long guns are often
useful, and much less likely to be abused.  (This is a change from my
position of a couple of years ago.)

>>>>Just a question, though.  Why is target shooting with a handgun more
>>>>fun that with a rifle, or a bow, or a crossbow, or a relatively
>>>>harmless air-gun?  Isn't the whole point of a sport the challenge, and
>>>>aren't these alternatives just as challenging?  (Not a flame, I really
>>>>want to know.)
>>
>
>	Chris Retterath
>
>
>>And it's harder with an air pistol.  But these don't give the same
>>feeling of power as a handgun, do they?
>
>Don't knock it until you've tried it -- I've never fired a handgun
>with powder, but a CO2 handgun for pigeons is much more difficult,
>and much more fun when you do hit your (moving) target, then a shotgun.

Which was my point - people don't need handguns capable of blowing away
humans to enjoy the challenge of target shooting.  So I continue to
believe that the potential harm of handguns outweighs the benefits.

>What limits will you accept to save a human life? Do you want us
>to live and die in total safety and security? Don't count on it!!

I'll settle for reasonable safety and security.  And some forms of gun
control are reasonable - the difficulty is drawing the line between the
reasonable and the unreasonable.  (But I do recognize that even
"reasonable safety and security" is an ideal, not a reality.  Then
again, ideals are what we shoot for, not what we're willing to settle
for.)

The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: zundel
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 14:21:28 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac, Vancouver Island, CANADA

In article <charles.715621050@menaik> charles@cs.UAlberta.CA (Charles Jobagy) writes:

>Don't worry about it, the TV news airheads are making the same mistake and
>they are paid well to "keep you informed".

Actually, it might be more accurate to assert that the news folks are well
paid to deliver an audience to their sponsors (with the exception of the
noble CBC, of course), and everything they do and say must be viewed within
that reality.
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Old Frog's Almanac - Public Access UseNet for Central Vancouver Island
     (604) 245-3205 (v32) (604) 245-4366 (2400x4) Waffle XENIX 1.64
Ladysmith, British Columbia, CANADA. kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay)
Xref: sparky can.general:4321 can.politics:6494 soc.culture.canada:6331
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Election sun rising
Date: 6 Sep 92 14:13:23 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada

In article <u9FoqB1w165w@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca> yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:
>And the plot thickens!!
>
>Why is the government using an election-styled defence to sell NAFTA ??

Because you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

>Dave Shariff Yadallee (yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca,
>userLIBE@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca)
>God Save the Queen, God Bless us All! Remember! Jesus Saves!!
>Treaty of Maastricht, synonymous with the Key to Armageddon.

May God save your queen. Please, watch your syntax in the future.

Michael MY Hui          myhui@bnr.ca           Ottawa Canada
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher)
Subject: Re: Election sun rising
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
	<SBO.92Sep7164500@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca>
	<1992Sep8.134021.27782@bcrka451.bnr.ca>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 17:50:57 GMT

>>>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:40:21 GMT, nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) said:

  > In article <SBO.92Sep7164500@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca>
sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:
      [...]
  > >Je suppose que tu inclus le partie liberal du Quebec au
  > >grand complet dans ton "el al"? Apres tout, Le partie a
  > >decide de ne pas respecter son propre programme...
  > >
  > >Si on implante un systeme comme tu le proposes, je dit qu'il
  > >faut aller jusqu'au bout: Si un politicien ne respecte pas
  > >sa parole alors il doit y avoir une election partielle.
  > >
  > >Evidemment, determiner si un politicien respect son mandat
  > >ou sa parole est un processus pas mal subjectif.

  > Mais dans ce cas ci (je suppose que tu parles de
  > l'entente constitutionelle), il y a un referendum.  Les
  > liberaux (ou disons, plus simplement, Bourassa) n'ont
  > pas simplement fait un changement unilateral; ce qui est
  > propose est offert aux electeurs pour leur approbation
  > ou desapprobation.

"Offert" est un bien grand mot. Les politiciens du Canada
sont en train d'en passer une vite aux Canadiens et
Quebecois. C'est la confusion total: 1) le Reform Party est
contre l'entente, mais ne sais pas trop s'il doit militer
contre, car ca pourrait etre mauvais pour la cote. 2) le
Equality Party (du moins les 3 deputes) a decide de se
ranger du cote du OUI pour ne pas faire campagne avec le PQ,
etc. On a aussi commence a voir des ecoeuranteris (hmmm)
comme Canada 125 qui, je suppose, va mettre fin a ces
activite le lendemain du referendum... Et evidemment, les
politiciens vont prendre avantage de la lassitude des
Canadiens et Quebecois. Pour bien paraitre il y aura
evidemment un peu d'argent gaspiller pour un comite futile
"charge d'etudier les offres du federal" (du moins au
Quebec).

L'entente constitutionnel est avant tout une entente entre
politiciens pour politiciens (c'est a dire pour sauver leurs
meubles). C'est a peu de choses pres un statu-quo, sauf
peut-etre pour les autochtones qui ont eu un cheque en
blanc.

Pour appeler ca un choix offert, il faudrait que le
referendum ait lieu demain matin et que la question soit:
"Acceptez-vous l'entente constitutionnel (ref aux textes
legaux) du 92/xx/xx."

Non, je n'accepterai jamais pareil escroquerie. Je met les
gens au defi de me faire changer d'idee. Le oui va passe, me
je ne serai pas a blamer!
--
  ,                          ,                           ,
Stephane Boucher, ing. jr. | Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca        | Tel: (514)340-5950
sbo@info.polymtl.ca        | Fax: (514)340-4078
Newsgroups: can.general
From: marc@meadow.uucp (Marc Riehm)
Subject: Re: Zundel
Reply-To: marc@meadow.UUCP (Marc Riehm)
Organization: Amdahl Canada Ltd., Software Development Center
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 92 15:05:41 GMT

The evolving .signature of Mr. Yadallee now looks like this ...

>Dave Shariff Yadallee (yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca,
>userLIBE@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca)
>God Save the Queen, God Bless us All! Remember! Jesus Saves!!
>Treaty of Maastricht, synonymous with the Key to Armageddon.

"Key to Armageddon"?  Whatsa matter, Dave -- been watching too much of
"The World Tomorrow" or reading too much of "The Plain Truth"?

-- 
Marc Riehm      Amdahl Canada Ltd., Software Development Center
                2000 Argentia Road, Plaza 2, Suite 300
                Mississauga, Ont.   L5N 1V8
marc@meadow.UUCP
Xref: sparky can.general:4453 misc.test:10777
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
Subject: Please help stop the violence :-{
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:36:04 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 2173

The following is reproduced without explicit permission but it is
evident that the author would not object to me posting it for her.

From Virginie Lariviere, whose younger sister was brutally assaulted
and murdered earlier this year:-

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello to one and all,

   My name is Virginie Lariviere. I am 13 and a half years old. Last
March 7th, a horrible nightmare happened to me and my family. My sister
Marie-Eve Lariviere (11) was murdered, after having been sexually abused,
then robbed.

   My sister Marie-Eve was delicate, always smiling, artistic, intelligent,
a writer, an actor. She had a promising future. Then, nothing... Now she
exists only in our hearts.

   I would like you to help me to reduce, bit by bit, the violence that
television offers us and that we watch with pleasure. You who are the
young generation, it is up to you to create the next one. Why not make
that one better? In signing my petition and boycotting violence, you
can help diminish it, bit by bit.

   It is certain, that if together we make a commitment to boycott this
violence and we propose to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, to pass a law
that would force television stations to reduce gradually the violent
content of television programming, in ten years this violence would not
appear on our screens.

   Therefore, before violent death knocks at YOUR door, sign my
petition, or write to the Prime Minister, and honor your commitment.

               Thank you for your help.

                    Virginie Lariviere
                    Box 263, St-Polycarpe
                    Quebec   J0P 1X0
                    CANADA


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I would rather you wrote to her directly, but if you e-mail me on this
I will forward it to her, of course.

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: sitomlin@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (Stephen I. Tomlinson)
Subject: Deficits Forever (was Re: How about some polling?)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 00:29:29 GMT

In article <jstewart.716148987@cunews> jstewart@alfred.carleton.ca (John Stewart) writes:
>. . .  .  On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised to find
>that most Canadians believe that a "perpetual deficit" is possible; the
>Federal government can just go right on running $30 billion annual deficits
>indefinitely.  The suggestion that sooner or later we must balance the
>budget through some combination of tax increases and spending cuts is
>just right wing propaganda, isn't it? :-)

Actually, the federal government can run exponentially increasing deficits
forever, even with low inflation and fair interest rates.  One way to do it 
is to have the country's gross domestic product (GDP) growing at least as 
fast as the debt.

And this situation isn't just theory.  The national debt (measured in 
nominal dollars) more than doubled between 1945 and 1975, but nominal GDP
rose more than 10 times, greatly reducing the debt burden (i.e. we spent
much less of our incomes on interest payments).  Also, the economy will be 
outgrowing the debt for most of the 1990's, once Canada's normal rate of 
economic growth returns.

In the years to come, I won't be surprised to find that most Canadians 
believe that our debt burden is increasing (because nominal debt is rising) 
even while the debt burden is actually decreasing (because the debt-to-GDP 
ratio is decreasing).

-Stephen
Xref: sparky can.general:4403 soc.culture.canada:6441
From: schieber@jetson.uh.edu (Schieber, Jay D.)
Newsgroups: can.general,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Bigger worries than which lane to drive in
Date: 9 Sep 92 23:28:00 GMT
Organization: University of Houston
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <92Sep9.171307edt.47897@neat.cs.toronto.edu>, mstede@cs.toronto.edu (Manfred Stede) writes...

[some discussing about Maastricht deleted]

> 
>Apart from these procedural matters, it is not clear to me what
>positive results we can expect from a political union.  The most
>important goal, as you say, is the preservation of piece; but it
>seems to me that the already agreed-on economic union will per-
>fectly accomplish this.  The other possible benefit of doing away
>with nation states is the elimination of regional/ethnic conflicts,
>but again I'm not convinced.  The Scottish and Northern-Irish in 
>the UK, the Basques and Catalonians in Spain, the two linguistic 
>factions in Belgium, the autonomy-minded Northern-Italians---they 
>all resist surrendering their powers to national governments.  
>Would they be more happy when surrendering them to a big, fat 
>all-European government in Brussels?
>Arguments?

Actually, some of these groups feel that their cultural heritage
will be better protected by an ethnically diverse European parliament 
than by a single ethnic group who is in power in their country.
This surprised me too the first time I read it, but it does have
some soundness to it.  Many of these groups feel oppressed by a
single powerful ethnic (or economic) group, so they see some protection
by banding together with a larger group, where each of the members
is in some sense a minority.
Newsgroups: can.general
From: merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer)
Subject: Re: Justifying guns
Organization: Ed (the iguana) Memorial Society
Distribution: can
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 92 00:01:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep05.144934.9790@rose.com> peter.churchill@rose.com (peter churchill) writes:
>Were handguns and such other weapons as I have just described to be 
>banned absolutely and that ban enforced rigorously, not only would I 
>feel my rights _not_ abrogated, but my right to live a peaceful life 
>in safety greatly enhanced.

you are fooling yourself if you thing that a total ban on handguns will
significantly reduce gun related crime.

-- 
[ Jim Mercer   Reptilian Research  merce@iguana.reptiles.org  +1 519 893-6085 ]
[   "Like a pump in a fish tank, we keep new things coming in so old things   ]
[    don't die." -- Archie McPhee Catalog                                     ]
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Re: How about some polling?
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:11:01 GMT

In <7JVVqB3w165w@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca> yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:

>An idea:  Gallup, Reid and others polls the population on contemporary issues.

>Why not us as Canadians do some polling of our own.  Anyone can do it.

Puh-leeze...I'm sick of polls. This country is governed on them. I
think this newsgroup is sufficient enough to get a grasp on what some
Canadians think.

>a proposal to think about.

I did...for all of two second. That was enough! :)


>Treaty of Maastricht, synonymous with the Key to Armageddon.

That's what I'm doing my thesis on....end-time beliefs of various
religions and Christian denominations.

Michael
Xref: sparky can.general:4397 can.politics:6620 soc.culture.canada:6428