HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dbowman@gorgon (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: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 21:41:00 GMT

Paul Ward (ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
: In article <BvIG14.J2D@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@rainbow (Don A. Bowman) writes:
: >Paul Ward (ward@sun15.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
: >: 
: >: You're environment example is very widely used, but false.  One only
: >: needs the individual right to life to protect the environment - someone
: >: should not pollute because it infringes on someone else's right to life.
: >
: >Yes, but entrenching it specifically is better, and less hard to define.
: 
: Why?

It would be much easier to show that the environment has been damaged than
that you have suffered loss of individual rights because of it. Picture a
local manufacturer dumping benzine in the water supply. It is easy to
demonstrate that damage, but you'll probably have to develop cancer and die
before you can prove it infringed on your right to life.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne)
Subject: Re: Canada's country code?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:30:16 GMT

In article <BvB2t3.3oo@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>In article <26SEP199213133566@sscvx1.ssc.gov> godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY) writes:

>>Canada has the unique distinction of being the only country which does NOT
>>have its own code, and uses the USA country code instead.  But then Canada
>>is barely a country at all, being indistinguishable from the USA except
>>in minor ways in which it is invariably inferior.
I seriously doubt that that is true.
>Isn't that more accurate to talk about the north american region code system?

>From my phone book, regional codes includes also zone 809 (Antillas,
>Bahamas and Bermudas, but Mexico is missing).

I expect that the reason is much more practical.  I would suspect that AT &T 
decided it was easier to assign Canada area codes (along with the U.S.) as
well as the parts of the Caribbean which are part of the U.S. or at least
English speaking.
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Canada's country code?
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:41:26 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <26SEP199213133566@sscvx1.ssc.gov> godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY) writes:
>
>Canada has the unique distinction of being the only country which does NOT
>have its own code, and uses the USA country code instead.  But then Canada
>is barely a country at all, being indistinguishable from the USA except
>in minor ways in which it is invariably inferior.
>
>Laurence

Isn't that more accurate to talk about the north american region code system?

From my phone book, regional codes includes also zone 809 (Antillas,
Bahamas and Bermudas, but Mexico is missing).

-- 
  \_\    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: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Royal Bank hypocrisy and the Telecommunications Sellout
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 00:02:24 GMT

In article <BvMCC2.80K@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@gorgon (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>: 
>: I expressed my opinion on the telecommunications sellout last week...
>: I was merely demonstrating that respected business commentators and
>: serious studies commissioned by big banks agree with me about how
>: the provisions for telecommunications in the Charlottetown Accord
>: imperil our economic future.
>
>By only showing people the news that you agree with, you filter their
>views. You are ignoring the balance in reporting by showing only one
>side of the story. It does not support your opinion to find one
>article supporting it and then posting it verbatim. People who do not
>read the Globe and Mail come away thinking that the official editorial
>position of the paper must be Anti-Accord.
>

To my knowledge, neither Terence Corcoran (the lead business commentator 
for the Globe and Mail--"Mr. Free-Enterprise") and David Crane (the
lead business commentator for the Toronto Star--"Mr. Industrial Policy") 
have not expressed either support nor opposition to Charlottetown.
They have only commented on it...if you interpret their comments as
opposition, than that is a conclusion you have made and which they
have not expressed. 

>Anybody here can find reams of arguments supporting their views. It is
>better, however, for them to post their own arguments rather than
>plagiarising those of others.
>

I have posted my own arguments...probably sufficiently often to
have become annoying...the thing I find surprising is that I
don't have to go looking for economic material...it has been 'magically'
appearing in the business sections of my local newspapers.

>I am not comfortable with the concept of reading what you believe to
>be newsworthy. If you honestly believe you are providing a service to
>people who cannot receive the Globe and Mail, you really should type
>in *ALL* articles, and let people judge for themselves. However,
>anybody on the net can get most of these articles from services like
>clarinet. They could also subscribe to CP.
>

I am not hiding what side of the referendum debate I am on!


Gerald
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:7114 can.politics:7775
From: uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk (Peter Bartlett)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Ontario "socialism"
Date: 1 Oct 92 22:59:49 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:

>You make the [university] system self-financing [through the creation of
a voucher system] ...people who use vouchers will be
>required to pay them back either by treating them as a loan, or through
>a higher income tax rate, or through some form of service.

Goodie!  More DEBT! (Unless, of course, you're rich ...).

>Open your eyes and see what is happening to our public universities...
>the rich don't go to public universities already...the rich always
>will have advantages by virtue of their wealth....

I.e., because the world is not perfect, it does not really matter if it's
made a little worse.

peter.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:7004 can.politics:7517
From: pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: The Accord and BC
Date: 29 Sep 92 21:01:02 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

In article <BvCsEq.5rt@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>
>BC is very unlikely to join the US. Like all Canadians, the people of British
>Columbia are very attached to Health Care. Under US rule, they would be
>unable to have this.

Whether or not they would join the US, if they did it does not mean that
they would have to give up medicare.  Did you know Hawaii has a medicare
equivalent?
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:7136 sci.research.careers:1253
From: bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross)
Subject: Re: Yes = ? No = ?
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Brock University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:47:30 GMT

beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
: Without any legal text to support the referendum, YES camp is claiming
: that :
: 
: YES stops Quebec separatism
: YES saves Canada
: NO means Quebec secession
: NO means Canada end
: 
: This with the participation of Guy Lafleur as a star of the YES camp
: indicates how low profile is the opinion of the YES camp about the
: intelligence of voters.

Hey, Trudeau and Manning are spokespeople for the NO camp, and they
aren't intellectual gods either.

: How can a NO gives Quebec secession while many organisms against Quebec
: secession are joining the NO camp?  If those who are involved directly
: in the fight of Quebec secession are against the deal, there must be
: something wrong, NO?

Other than the Trudeau-Manning partnership, most of the NO side 
would never be able to agree on ANY sort of solution to the 
constitutional problem.  The NO camp is a pot pouri of antagonistic
viewpoints.  Whether the whole NO camp is secessionist or not
is irrelevant to the outcome of the referendum as far as the secessionist
cause is concerned.

-- 
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,can.politics
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Subject: Re: Nothing is free ... (Was: Ontario "socialism")
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:16:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct01.105105.35478@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk> uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk (Peter Bartlett) writes:
>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>
>>"4. Token user deductibles of $5-$20 as proposed by Quebec last spring
>>so that folks would go to the pharmacy for a box of bandages (24 for
>>$3.00) rather than go to the doctor.  These would double as a reminder
>>to the patient that the doctor is a fee-paid professional and not some
>>servant at their beck and call ... again, because too many people have
>>been convinced that it's free due to Canadian left-populist ideology
>>or just because they can't add.
>
>I know it will come as a shock to some of the people on the line, but there
>*are* people in Canada for whom $5-20 is not "token".  And I do *not* think
>this is restricted to people on welfare.  To pretend that "token" fees like
>these do not serve as a significant barrier to health care seems to me
>simply wilful blindness.

There are a couple of methods that would deal with this:  one is to
ask people up front if they can afford it.  Most people oppose this
as it hurts the dignity of people - the only obvious response to that
is why should my pocketbook suffer for the sake of someone's dignity.
The second method would be a billing method, via income tax.  Everytime
you visit the doctor, you (and revenue Canada) receive a receipt.  At
income tax time, those with a sufficient income, are required to fork
out the cost - those without are not.  This has the advantage that 
only you and Revenue Canada know, so there is no dignity problem.  It
does, of course, require some bureaucracy.  The second method can, in
fact, be extended to a system like the new child care system - those
who needed the funding for health care would receive it; those who
did not would pay for it.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: CZ94 <CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA>
Subject: Re: Yes = ? No = ?
Organization: McGill University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 21:36:30 GMT

In article <BvnGnE.ICp@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.164730.7076@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
>>
>>Other than the Trudeau-Manning partnership, most of the NO side
>>would never be able to agree on ANY sort of solution to the
>>constitutional problem.
>
>You're kidding (where are the smileys?).  Asymmetrical federalism is some
>kind of federalism.  A-F was proposed by PQ for years.  A-F is a suitable
>and more relevant renewing of the constitution than the make-up operation
>of Charlottetown.  In 1980, the subject of referendum was A-F.
>
The 1980 referendum was on sovereignty-association.  My understanding
of this concept was that Quebec would be an independent state
which would form an economic association with Canada.  The word
"federalism" (symmetric or asymmetric) implies the existence of a
single sovereign state, which devolves power in greater or lesser
amounts to its constituent parts.  So

S-A  -->  2 countries
A-F  -->  1 country.

I fail to see how sovereignty-association and asymmetric federalism can
be equated.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA

Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:7226 can.politics:8058
From: uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk (Peter Bartlett)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: I was going to vote yes, BUT NOW ....
Date: 6 Oct 92 11:22:00 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium

thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:

>Certain Senators will be Senators because they are female.

I am having trouble locating an affirmative action clause in the
agreement.  Indeed, in provinces where senators will be directly 
elected, I do not see how such a provision is possible.  Perhaps
someone can explain to me where this idea is coming from?  (Remember,
I'm in the UK and don't get much Canadian news).

Presumably the issue is that some provinces who will be electing their
senators through their legislatures have said they will elect women?

Which raises the spectre of ensuring representation for women.  Now I
know it is highly trendy for boys to get up on their equal rights
bandwagon and start saying people shouldn't get jobs because of their
sex.  (It is interesting that this argument was much less frequent when 
it was the boys that got jobs because of their sex...).  But I'm much
more interested in how the system is actually working.

My own limited experience was at the Supreme Court of Ontario (before
consolidation with the District Courts).  We had at least three recent
judicial appointments, allegedly made because the appointees were women--
and the men really did whine about it.  What I found interesting is that
the women were actually very highly qualified, and in fact three of the
most energetic, intellectually sound, and competent members of the court.
If these people are "token appointments" to get numbers up, please God
send more tokens!

In other words, it just might be that there are highly capable women out
there who won't be looked at without a particular arm twist to *make*
the "old boys" take them seriously.

peter.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:6879 can.politics:7336
From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Ontario "socialism"
Date: 26 Sep 92 23:00:10 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa

In article <1992Sep26.160351.43895@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk> uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk (Peter Bartlett) writes:
>Chris Retterath writes:  "State centralized is a very good term for Ontario.
>I'm not the only one who refers to it as our own `People's Republic'."  And
>then goes on to list a whole range of "socialist" measures.
>
>Chris, Darling--
>
>My heart is set fluttering.  So many of my NDP friends whine incessantly that
>the Rae government has done nothing.  And there you come to set us all right.
>I trust all whining New Democrats will hang their heads in shame, when
>confronted with your litany of factors showing a government with some at least
>passing commitment to social justice, not merely to the greed of the wealthy.

Which is political Newspeak, if I ever heard it.  The wealthy are "of
course" evil and greedy.  And the NDP are "of course" the only people
with even a passing committment to "social justice," whatever that
term actually means.

>Am I the only one who remembers that Ontario voted for a *change* from the
>Liberals?

I remember something about Ontarians being ticked off with the Liberal
leader for timing the election so as to try to take advantage of
ignorance/apathy.  I don't particularly remember anything about
particularly wanting socialism...

>And be honest-- isn't it refreshing to have a government that
>believes *something*?  At least sort of?

Well, that's hard to see.  

As an example; the NDP used to believe that university tuition was
something to cut/eliminate (or at least that it shouldn't be
increased).

I would show you exhibit #1: My tuition bill for LAST summer.  And
exhibit #2: Tuition bill for THIS summer.  Guess what.  There's a 78%
difference between 'em.  And I was part time for both terms.  Not
exactly a decrease.

That was kind of an unusual case;  it's been more typical for tuition
levels to rise at 8% (which, I would note, is several times the
current inflation rate).

The NDP may believe *something*, but I'm not so sure that they
actually act on those things that they claim to believe.

The pro-union legislation is, of course, something that they would
HAVE to support, on principle.  Whether it is good for the economy, or
bad for the economy.  (And if the economy is prosperous, then both the
"evil wealthy people" and the working people benefit.  If it's NOT
doing well, there ain't nobody gonna benefit, except by thievery...)

The recent legislation is not as pro-union as the NDP principles would
demand; it's certainly more anti-business than the business-people can
handle.

-- 
Christopher Browne
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca
University of Ottawa
Master of System Science Program
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Charlottetown accord (was "What happens on October 26?")
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:39:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.191656.4433@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>>But between now and then we will have to endure the chorus of
>>Chicken Littles.
>>[...]
>>Voting Yes is akin to jumping off a cliff into a bottomless abyss.
>
>So Canada must choose between skyfall and abyss.
>What a dilemma!
>

The difference is change is certain if one jumps into the abyss...
and the skyfall remains only a possibility whether you jump or
not.  The skyfall is a false contingency, which the act of jumping
or not jumping does not affect.

The proper question is "To jump, or not to jump"...the sky will
be cloudy before and after regardless.  The choice is between
established ground and the abyss, not between skyfall and the abyss.

Gerald
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:7078 can.politics:7672
From: riese@litsun.epfl.ch (Marc Riese)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: On the Legal Text
Date: 1 Oct 92 08:37:10 GMT
            <BvEK1J.C67@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>
Followup-To: can.politics


>Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>[massive copies article deleted]

Don Bowman wrote:
>I don't think it's really acceptable to reprint an entire editorial from a
>newspaper, especially if you are adding nothing to it.
...
>Post your own views, quoting to prove a point, or for contrast.

Hey, what about all of us expatriots who don't have easy access to
Canadian news?? I enjoy long quotations of articles. 
People who write the articles are less likely to write nonsense than
newsgroup posters because they are more accountable for their words.

Marc Riese
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
Lausanne
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:7034 can.politics:7567
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Canada Clause
Date: 30 Sep 92 14:53:34 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <28SEP92.09702780.0063@VM1.MCGILL.CA> CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94) writes:
>In article <Bv7MJD.16n@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>>
>>Having 3 Justices from Quebec is something quite acceptable because
>>Quebec has not the same law system that CHQ.
>>You need to have enough different opinions in any issue.
>>
>>But, having 3 Justices from Ontario is bad.  Ontario has the same law
>>system as other provinces of CHQ.  So, 2 justices from Ontario (1/3 of CHQ
>>roughly) and 4 from different provinces should be the rule.
>>
>Ontario is more than 1/3 of CHQ.  In fact, it's more than 1/3 of
>Canada.  From the 1991 census: population of Ontario -- 10,084,885
>population of rest-of-rest-of-Canada -- 10,316,011.  So 3 justices
>from Ontario and 3 from the other 8 provinces and 2 territories
>seems reasonable to me.
>
>Tom Box
>CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA

I disagree.  They need more Justices to have more experiences about
different questions.  Even if Ontario have 1/2 of Canada population,
it is far from having 1/2 of Canadian laws.  We could even say that
all provinces have roughly the same number of laws and that Ontario
has about 1/10 of CHQ and federal laws.  In this particular case,
it is a matter of evaluating some laws and what they really mean
without biasing, and not of taking decision in favor of any province.
As a voting and subjective assembly, HoC, like the senate, is not
at all comparable.

-- 
  \_\    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 !
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:7033 can.politics:7566
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Polling results : Canada
Date: 30 Sep 92 14:48:23 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <1992Sep29.224046.5784@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>From article <BvD15o.HJG@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>, by beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard):
>> 
>> Last polling in Quebec : something like 39% YES 47% NO.
>> 
>
>Lest anyone should be unaware:-
>
>Some of the "NO!" votes in Quebec will be from federalists, non-separatists,
>and other groups. (including members of Alliance Quebec and the Equality
>Party - "party" lines are irrelevant in this one).
>

This is one more reason why speeches from Mulroney is bulshit!
NO camp includes a lot of different opinions, even members from
Liberal party whose leader is the head ( :-)  ) of the YES camp.


-- 
  \_\    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 !
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:6894 can.politics:7354 can.general:4612