HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee)
Newsgroups: can.general,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Tragedy at concordia and a net-proposal to prevent furthur incid
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 05:40:16 MDT
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems #1, Edmonton, AB, Canada

I must follow up on my own article as new evidence has come my way!!

yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:

-
- Hello.  Unbelievable!! What is Montreal's Academic community coming to.  Firs
- Polytechnique, now Concordia.  What is happening?
-
- Are we in the middle of a  crisis?  Could this tradegy at Concordia be
- preventable? What about the abuses and threadening messages, and e-mail?  Was
- that taken into consideration?
-
- I have only ONE thing to say!! enough is ENOUGH!! In fact, it has seem to hav
- gotten extreme!!  Can anyone, Roy G.(?), provide any details?
-
- I don't know what to say, other than make a recommendation.  USenet, esp. the
- "internal" nodes, can be of help.  This recent tragedy, polytechnique, and on
- which I had with another netter, could call for a new forum.
-
- I would like to propose can.relations.problems.
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  I would now like to propose a group called soc.relations.problems, moderated
  be someone in the psychology world as I now have e-mail from the UK revealing
  that Fabrikant had e-mail someone to the UK.  I would like this cross-posted
  to many  "appropriate"  groups as possible and I need help developping a
  charter.


- Let's stop hiding the
- problems we are having.  I could end up being sick if something similar occur
- again.  Let's speak about our problems.  Let's discuss them: personal,
- relational, professional.  We don't need anymore unneccesary harassment,
- hassle, et al.  Let's speak about it, address it , discusss it before it to
- late.
-
- Again, I would propse a newsgroup called can.relations.problems to help
- opening and festering wounds.
-


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.
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Election sun rising
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 01:00:09 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.194348.26576@bcrka451.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>On the other hand, Mulroney does want to get re-elected; if that means
>piggy-backing on the constitutional deal, I wouldn't put it past him.
>It would show him to be totally morally bankrupt, but would that
>surprise anyone?

Just to pull a "Devil's Advocate" for a minute...

Mr. Mulroney is the leader of the PC party.  He is morally obligated to do
his best to keep the party in power.  It would be morally bankrupt for him
to throw away all benefit that might have been received for the timing of
a constitutional deal.

Question:  Do you think that the PM should time the election such that he
is most likely to lose?  On what basis do you think that he should make
such a decision?
-- 
Christopher Browne
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca
University of Ottawa
Master of System Science Program
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Crush Big Macs
Date: 4 Sep 92 14:13:17 GMT
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

I would just like to point out that Orange Crush and Big Mac Special Sauce
taste exactly alike.

Thank you very much.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
Newsgroups: can.general
From: labach@acs.ucalgary.ca (Terence Michael Labach)
Subject: Re: Zundel
Originator: labach@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:50:17 GMT
Organization: The Bobby Jurasin Fan Club

In article <1992Aug28.112723.29850@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes: 
> 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?
> 
> Without free speech and expression, it is impossible to discover
> or find truth.  If one loves truth, one must embrace free speech
> and fight censorship whereever it appears.

Yes!  Censorship is both a crude weapon and a bad substitute for
reasoned belief.  Rather than telling people they shouldn't say
something, we should demonstrate why the alternatives are better.  Not
that Zundel isn't a lying little shit whose claim to humanity is little
better than a cockroach's, but being a piece of scum is an insufficient
reason to censor someone.

> If truth is on your side, you don't need censorship.  Your ideas
> will prevail in the marketplace of ideas.  

Nonsense.  (Marketplace of ideas - that's an oxymoron.)  There is no
reason why 'good' must, or will, prevail.  Unless you`re beginning to
accept a Marxist view of history. :-) :-) :-) It may be right to oppose
censorship, but doing what is right offers no guarantee of success in
building the type of society we want.

> Fight lies with truth
> and better ideas, not with censorship.

- terry -
======================================================================
"Nothing good can ever come of censorship.  Cutting one person's tongue
 will not give another person a voice, but it turns the silencer into a
 dictator."
 - Alberto Manguel
Newsgroups: can.general
From: labach@acs.ucalgary.ca (Terence Michael Labach)
Subject: Re: Zundel
Originator: labach@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 02:01:14 GMT
	<LABACH.92Aug28085017@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca>
	<skenny.715018264@femto.engr.mun.ca>
	<LABACH.92Aug28125532@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca> <sbuckley.715155956@sfu.ca>
Organization: The Bobby Jurasin Fan Club

In article <sbuckley.715155956@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (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...)

- terry -
======================================================================
"Why would I quit smoking pot?  Because the government tells me to?  A
 government who'd send me to a desert to get shot as a glorified
 rent-a-cop for a gas station?"
 - Chris Robinson, lead singer of the Black Crowes, at the Great Atlanta
   Pot Festival for NORML
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Election sun rising
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:12:24 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <1992Sep3.131830.2610@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>Canada's only saving grace politically is that people usually vote for
>different parties at the federal and provicial levels. Not all people - but
>enough to keep the rulings parties out of synch. This creates a healthy
>tension. 

Futhermore, in some provinces (e.g. Quebec) there are provincial
parties that don't have an equivalent at the federal level (e.g., PQ).
The provincial Liberal party seems today to be more aligned with the
federal Conservative Party than the Liberal Party.

Like you said, this is healthy and has a much more important impact
than a Senate (elected or not).
-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: can.general
From: rbutterw@math.uwaterloo.ca (Ray Butterworth [MFCF])
Subject: Re: Speeding, but only slightly (was: Re: sdebar re passing or right
Organization: Math Faculty Computing Facility, University of Waterloo
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:16:51 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.181943.24414@sol.UVic.CA> klassen@sol.UVic.CA (Melvin Klassen) writes:
>If the faster driver was only capable of driving 2.6 percent faster
>than the slower driver, then something is not-quite-right with this trial!
>(Many drivers in sleepy-old-Victoria-BC are quite capable of doing
>65 in a 50 zone, and 100 in an 80 zone.  Maybe, one of them should be used!)

Yes, over short intervals one can even travel several hundred percent
faster than some of the other cars, but over long distances there are
enough other obstacles that most of the time one can't go any faster
than the rest of the traffic, making the average times quite similar.

Over short intervals one can gain a lot of relative time (e.g. 75%)
but very little in absolute time (e.g. dozens of seconds);
and over long intervals one can gain a lot of absolute time (30 minutes)
but very little in relative time (3%).
Newsgroups: can.general
From: ziggy@r-node.gts.org (Adrian Buss  Sys-Op)
Subject: Re: sdebar re passing or right (was sidebar re 401 (: -))
Organization: Public Access UNIX Information System
Distribution: can
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 19:07:27 GMT

In article <charlesv.714410431@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca> charlesv@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Charles Van Duren) writes:
>woods@robohack.UUCP (Greg A. Woods) writes:
>
>As Greg asks, is it really worth it?
>
>As for those of you who admire the autobahns from afar without ever
>having driven them, hold off on your enthusiasm until you have that experience.
>

Yup if you are late for work =)

adrian


-- 
ziggy@r-node.gts.org         | Have you rubbed noses with an Eskimo today??
ziggy@zooid.guild.org        | My inability to spell and gramatize are no
adrian@skypod.guild.org      | reflection on the GENERAL CANADIAN intelligence!!
Newsgroups: can.general,sci.research.careers
From: buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland)
Subject: Re: Election sun rising
Organization: University of B.C. Computing Services
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 23:15:11 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.025956.3731@bcrka451.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>In article <1992Sep2.010009.12978@csi.uottawa.ca> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep1.194348.26576@bcrka451.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>>> ... It would show him to be totally morally bankrupt, but would that
>>>surprise anyone?
>>Mr. Mulroney is the leader of the PC party.  He is morally obligated to do
>>his best to keep the party in power.  ...
>"morally obligated".  This assumes Mulroney's morality outweighs his
>ambitions.  In fact, if morality really counts, one would have to say
>that he is "morally obligated" to the country he leads ...

 Just as a matter of interest, what is it that leaders promise to do
 in Canada; i.e., what is the content of their oath of office?  In
 the U.S., everyone from Army recruit to President swears to uphold
 the Constitution, and the President swears to faithfully execute
 the duties of the office.  Did Mulroney swear alliegance to the
 Queen?  Did he (formally, that is, not in a campaign speech) promise
 to do anything else?
Newsgroups: can.general
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Zundel
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 21:07:30 GMT

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.

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?

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

The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: can.general
From: woods@robohack.UUCP (Greg A. Woods)
Subject: Re: benefits of driving above the speed limit
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc.
Distribution: can
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 15:07:57 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.155950.18616@imax.imax.com> dave@imax.imax.com (Dave Martindale) writes:
> As to what I *do* think about slow drivers:  I think that slow vehicles
> do have a place on the road.  That place is the right-most lane.  If
> such drivers can drive competently, other traffic can flow around them
> fairly well.

There's one very valid exception to this "rule".  Large, heavily
loaded, vehicles, such as 18-wheel(+) trucks.  When you're operating a
machine that cannot accelerate, or slow down, with any degree of
speed, you must avoid situations where you'll get cut off the most
often.  This usually means driving in the centre lane of highways with
more than four lanes.
-- 
						Greg A. Woods

woods@robohack.UUCP woods@Elegant.COM  VE3TCP	UniForum Canada & ECI
+1 416 443-1734 [home] +1 416 595-5425 [work]	Toronto, Ontario; CANADA
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Election sun rising
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 10:44:11 GMT

In article <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?
>

If the constitutional deal passes, Mulroney will resign as leader of
the Tories in the spring, Lougheed will become the new leader with
Campbell, Beatty, and Bouchard with more prominent roles...and like
the British Conservatives will win another majority government
next year.

Gerald


Newsgroups: can.general
From: labach@acs.ucalgary.ca (Terence Michael Labach)
Subject: Re: Zundel
Originator: labach@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 20:22:32 GMT
	<12727@hans> <1992Sep2.193043.692@bcars6a8.bnr.ca>
Organization: The Bobby Jurasin Fan Club

In article <1992Sep2.193043.692@bcars6a8.bnr.ca> clewis@bcarh1d7.bnr.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:

   >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.

   'Fraid not.  Neither of these laws are very old.  15 years at most.
   And neither of them have ever been used before.  Neither of them would
   be applicable to monarchs anyways.  (Do you consider the Queen to
   be an "identifiable group"?)

Could you give your source for the age of the false news law being 15
years?

   Hell, if they were invented to "protect the monarch", doncha think Britain
   would have similar laws?   It's obvious that they don't.

One of the news reports I heard on this (CBC radio - I can't recall if
it was As It Happens or the World at Six) quoted one of the justices as
stating that Britain had repealed the equivalent to this law some
years ago, but that it had had its genesis in trying to protect (as
usual) the propertied classes.

Do any legal experts out there know the history of the false news law?

- terry -
From: lynne_d@aci_1.aci.ns.ca (LYNNE DUBE)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: LOGHOUSE
Summary: IN NOVA SCOTIA, CANADA
Keywords: LOGHOUSE 4 SALE
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:51:52 GMT
Organization: Atlantic Computer Institute

From: lynne_d@aci_1.aci.ns.ca (LYNNE DUBE)
Subject: LOGHOUSE 4 SALE
Summary: NOVA SCOTIA, CANADA
Keywords: LOGHOUSE FOR SALE
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 19:30:27 GMT
DATE : JUNE 10, 1992
FROM : LYNNE_D@ACI_1.ACI.NS.CA

	************************ ATTENTION *************************

	PRICE REDUCED TO -> $90,000.00 WITH 5 ACRES OF LAND

	[ADDITIONAL ACREAGE IS AVAILABLE!]

	*************************************************************

       For sale a loghouse situated in southwestern Nova Scotia, Canada.
The following are key points of interest:
       - 5 years old
       - 30 x 36 ft
       - 1 and 1/2 storey high
       - 3 bedrooms
       - 1 master bedroom w/balcony
       - rock basement
       - 1 bathroom
       - front/back veranda porch
       - 85 acres of land
       - 1 barn
       - 1 greenhouse
       - berry patches
       - several fruit trees
       - large garden area used to grow vegetables
       - 1 storage shed
       - airtight woodstove
       - wood furnace
       -laundry/sewing area
       - ASKING  $125,000.00
Anyone interested in more details can contact the following party at the 
following address or myself at the above internet address.
       PLEASE SERIOUS INQUIRIES ONLY!!    THANKYOU
       Roger/Jeanne Dube
       Box 95-A
       Salmon River, Digby Co.
       Nova Scotia, Canada
       B0W 2Y0
       Telephone (902)649-2394...BEST TIME is after 6:00p.m. eastern
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: chris@mks.com (Chris Retterath)
Subject: Re: Election sun rising
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems Inc., Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:05:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.195120.1393@bcars6a8.bnr.ca> clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
>In article <1992Sep2.121150.7314@cl.cam.ac.uk> iaf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Innes Ferguson) writes:
>>Like so many other aspects of the political framework in Canada, I'm
>>guessing Canada imported the system of choosing election dates from 
>>the British. It's sad how British-like (read undemocratic) Canada's
>>political institutions are even today (the Senate being the prime example).
>
>"British-like" == "undemocratic"?  I think I'll skip flaming this one.

Undemocratic in that the senate is appointed in Canada & Britain, while it is
elected in the US and Australia. Douse those flames..

>Furthermore, when you get a shmuck, you're stuck with him until the end of the
>term.  Unless you manage to impeach him.  Then you get stuck with an
>unelected president until the end of the term.  Is that any better?

Did you forget how John Turner became Prime Minister?
He sure wasn't elected! Same with Miller in Ontario, and that 'first woman' premier
in British Columbia. None of them were elected. So much for our system
protecting us from unelected shmucks..


	Chris Retterath

Newsgroups: can.general
From: braeuer@unixg.ubc.ca (Peter Braeuer)
Subject: Re: Can an accident occur without someone breaking the law?
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 03:37:07 GMT

Well... if the shop left a crucial part out of the steering assembly, or
if they screw up your brakes in a not-obvious-until-it's-too-late fashion,
or if the rom decides that your car is moving way too slowly...but that's
hardly a common occurence (I hope) :^).

Of course someone broke the law, but not the drivers.

Peter Braeuer
braeuer@unixg.ubc.ca
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: Can an accident occur without someone breaking the law?
Date: 31 Aug 92 18:28:21 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

This question is just like this other :
If someone pays attention to his/her work and knows how to use a PC,
then can he/she lose any data in the computer hard disk?

And I think the answer is yes in both cases.

-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Un Quebec renouvele dans une Amerique renovee
\_.-===                                                  Opinions ? Et pis non !
Newsgroups: can.general
From: buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland)
Subject: What are the most dangerous (legal) things to do in traffic?
Organization: University of B.C. Computing Services
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:14:22 GMT

 I assume we've now said at least once everything useful that can be
 said on the subject of moving right when overtaken.  What I'd like
 to get into now is, what are the most dangerous things you can think
 of to do in traffic, within the law?
 
 A clue to what I mean: earlier this week I was crossing the Granville
 Bridge in Vancouver in moderate traffic.  Several lanes on each side,
 several on ramps and several off ramps, so there's a lot of desire
 to change lanes.  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.
 
 Another example: I pass someone who is currently stopped in the
 right lane, and then pull in in front of him - let's say so that
 I can turn right at the next corner.  Just as I start to move
 right, he decides to move ahead in his lane: he could have been
 parked, and decided to leave, or he could have been a bus driver
 who has finished his stop and is starting up again.  Not only is
 my space to move right vanishing, but the other driver is
 accelerating.  I was a passenger on a bus once that pulled around
 an apparently parked car to turn right in front of it, and ended
 up mashing the car against the curb when the car suddenly moved
 ahead in this kind of situation.
 
 So, what's your favorite legal-but-hairy traffic action?
Newsgroups: can.general
From: buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland)
Subject: Can an accident occur without someone breaking the law?
Organization: University of B.C. Computing Services
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:39:51 GMT

 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 in, for
 instance, allowing you to drive as fast as you know the magnificent
 performance of your vehicle and your well-toned reflexes and skills
 would safely permit.
 
 It should, then, be impossible for an accident to occur without at
 least one person breaking the law.  But is it?  What's your opinion?
 Bear in mind that a traffic act will include such provisions as:
 you must not follow too closely (a rule almost always judged to
 have been broken if you manage to rear-end anyone not actively
 backing into your parked grille); you must maintain your vehicle
 in safe condition (so that if a tire on your 18-wheeler blows
 20 kg of rubber into somebody's face on the other side of the
 freeway, you're at fault); you must not drive too fast for the
 conditions, _whatever_ they are (so that if you round a corner in
 a Falling Rock/Chute des Pierres zone and today turns out to be
 Falling day, you'd better not be going too fast to stop); and,
 you must drive with due care and attention.