next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects Do you think that hoaxes such as this are the side effects of post-modernism and demonstrate that that anti-philsophic movement exists in order to cause harm? I suggest this for a numnber of reasons. First, because scholar who were more empirically disposed would be aware of the value of verifying allegations. Secondly, because policy matters which have condensed into bills or other legislative statements are particularly subject to verification. Thirdly, because two weeks ago I received a message which was later said to be a hoax which had the potential to do irreparable harm. The message alleged that Iran had arrested a number of rabbis and their students for studying Jewish scriptures. Folks who study such issues would know that Iran has, in fact, been relatively friendly to its resident Jewish population and that this message was of the 602P type, i.e., no such number. On the other hand, given the variety of extreme sensibilities at this time and the growing likelihood of world war the spreading of this kind of hoax is likely to do irreparable harm. I would not want to see such matters adjudicated before the regular courts. I do, however, suggest that folks with scholarly pretensions assume a degree of ethical responsibility. If this has a slightly humourless tone, I apologize. I am still recovering from the last two world wars. And I am concerned in my daily work with the systematic effort to downgrade the role of democratic institutions in the mainstream media. Those who use newer or alternative media to exacerbate the level of human suffering do bring out my more humourless side. Yours for genuine humour, Fr. Eh-nom-a-louse. Whitlock, Jeremy wrote: > > Michael: > > It is indeed a hoax; check out > > http://urbanlegends.miningco.com/ > > Cheers, > > Jeremy. > > ? ---------- > ? From: Michael Posluns[SMTP:mposluns@accglobal.net] > ? Reply To: MPosluns@accglobal.net > ? Sent: Thursday, April 22, 1999 7:27 PM > ? To: J. Bennett.; "Dr. Bryan Griffith Dobbs"; fnr_pubpol@yorku.ca; > ? Jean-Paul Vanderlinden; John Shafer; lisn2000@lisn.net; > ? sfp-net@chebucto.ns.ca > ? Cc: bluestar@carib-link.net; dsmoke@julian.uwo.ca; > ? mohawk@generation.net; kateri@idirect.com; Steeves@sprint.ca; > ? mohawkna@slic.com; prynard@idirect.com; Paul Skanks; naomia@YorkU.CA; > ? bsyaguru@aol.com; wahta@sympatico.ca; agada@sprint.ca; yu203177@YorkU.CA > ? Subject: Bill 602P ? E-mail Surcharges > ? > ? Friends, > ? > ? It is not my usual custom, as some of you will have noticed, to > ? defend the Canadian gov't. That said, I should also tell you > ? that in my 40 years of reading parliamentary debates there has > ? never been a bill numbered 602P. Indeed, all federal bills are > ? numbered either "C-x" where x is the number and the bill begins > ? in the Commons or "S-x" where x is the number and the bill begins > ? in the Senate. > ? > ? A further test of the reality of this concern would be to go to > ? "parl.gc.ca" where you can obtain a list of all bills presented > ? during the current session of this Parliament and an index to the > ? House of Commons Debates. > ? > ? Lastly, just for good measure I would suggest each concerned > ? person write to one MP and one Senator and, along with expressing > ? your concern about this possibility, also ask if they have heard > ? of any such proposal. > ? > ? Those Senators and MPs who use e-mail for public purposes have > ? their e-mail addresses listed in the List of MPs or the List of > ? Senators to be found also ar "parl.gc.ca". > ? > ? Good hunting, > ? > ? > ? mp > ? > ? J. Bennett. wrote: > ? ? > ? ? For those of you who have not heard from me for a while Hi and for those > ? ? who wished not to receive mass mailing my apologies. I thought this > ? might > ? ? be of some importance as it could eventually effect use all if it > ? passes. > ? ? Nai:wen, Meegwich, Thank You. > ? ? > ? ? Jeff > ? ? > ? ? ?From: "J. Bennett." ?lastcall@sprint.ca? > ? ? ?Subject: Re: Fwd: Email Surcharges > ? ? ?In-Reply-To: ?19990421145130.21908.rocketmail@attach1.rocketmail.com? > ? ? ? > ? ? ? > ? ? ?Hmmh interesting but not at all surprising. After all they did lose > ? those > ? ? censorship cases a few years back. Maybe Canada Post should open an ISP > ? ? department as well? Na nobody would go for their monthly rates being > ? ? increased two cents per year ;). > ? ? ? > ? ? ?Maybe if this bill passes they could invite the CRTC in to help > ? ? sensor,oops monitor sorry, the Muti-Media news world as well. Ya never > ? know > ? ? with all those News-groups and Listserv's going through on Rogers Cable > ? now > ? ? and hey you never know if some ones trying to pass bad info through CNN > ? or > ? ? MS NBC. > ? ? ? > ? ? ? > ? ? ?J.B > ? ? ? > ? ? ? > ? ? ?At 07:51 AM 04/21/99 -0700, you wrote: > ? ? ?Please read > ? ? ? > ? ? ?---Laura and Pat Maracle ?lbmaracle@suckercreek.on.ca? wrote: > ? ? ? > ? ? ?? Here's something interesting and infuriating. > ? ? ? > ? ? ??Please read the following carefully if you intend to stay online and > ? ? ??continue using email. The last few months have revealed an alarming > ? trend > ? ? in the > ? ? ??Government of Canada attempting to quietly push through legislation > ? that > ? ? will > ? ? ??affect your use of the Internet. Under proposed legislation Canada > ? Post > ? ? will be ?attempting to bill email users out of "alternate postage fees". > ? ? ?? > ? ? ??Bill 602P will permit the Federal Govt to charge a 5 cent surcharge on > ? ? every email ?delivered, by billing Internet Service Providers at source. > ? ? The consumer would then ?be billed in turn by the ISP. Toronto lawyer > ? ? Richard Stepp QC is working to prevent ?this legislation from becoming > ? law. > ? ? The Canada Post Corporation is claiming that ?lost revenue due to the > ? ? proliferation of email is costing nearly $23,000,000 in > ? ? ??revenue peryear. > ? ? ?? > ? ? ??You may have noticed Canada Post's recent ad campaign "There is > ? nothing > ? ? like > ? ? ??a letter". Since the average citizen received about 10 pieces of email > ? per > ? ? ??day in 1998, the cost to the typical individual would be an additional > ? 50 > ? ? ??cents per day, or over $180 dollars per year, above and beyond their > ? ? regular ?Internet costs. Note that this would be money paid directly to > ? ? Canada Post for a ?service they do not even provide. The whole point of > ? the > ? ? Internet is democracy and ?non-interference. If the Canadian Government > ? is > ? ? permitted to tamper with our ?liberties by adding a surcharge to email, > ? who > ? ? knows where it will end. You are ?already paying an exhorbitant price > ? for > ? ? snail mail because of beaurocratic > ? ? ??inefficiency. > ? ? ?? > ? ? ??It currently takes up to 6 days for a letter to be delivered from > ? ? Mississauga > ? ? ??to Scarborough. If Canada Post Corporation is allowed to tinker with > ? email, > ? ? ??it will mark the end of the "free" Internet in Canada. One > ? back-bencher, > ? ? ??Liberal Tony Schnell (NB) has even suggested a "twenty to forty > ? dollar per > ? ? ??month surcharge on all Internet service" above and beyond the > ? government's > ? ? ??proposed email charges. > ? ? ?? > ? ? ??Note that most of the major newspapers have ignored the story, the > ? only > ? ? exception ?being the Toronto Star that called the idea of email > ? surcharge > ? ? "a useful concept ?who's time has come" (March 6th 1999 Editorial) > ? ? ?? > ? ? ??Don't sit by and watch your freedoms erode away! > ? ? ?? > ? ? ??Send this email to all Canadians on your list and tell your friends > ? and > ? ? relatives ??to write to their MP and say "No!" to Bill 602P. > ? ? ?? > ? ? ??Kate Turner > ? ? ??Assistant to Richard Stepp QC > ? ? ??Berger, Stepp and Gorman > ? ? ??Barristers at Law > ? ? ??216 Bay Street > ? ? ??Toronto, ON MlL 3C6 > ? ? ?? > ? ? ?? > ? ? > ? ??*********************************************************************** > ? ? ?? This e-mail message is privileged, confidential and subject to > ? ? ?? copyright. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is prohibited. > ? ? ?? > ? ? > ? ??*********************************************************************** > ? ? ?? > ? ? ?? > ? ? ?? > ? ? ?? > ? ? ?? > ? ? ??_________________________________________________________ > ? ? ??DO YOU YAHOO!? > ? ? ??Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > ? ? ?? > ? ? ?? > ? ? > ? ? Shennon ta:non Nariwiio > ? ? > ? ? Jeff Bennett > ? > ? -- > ? Michael W. Posluns, > ? The StillWaters Group, > ? First Nations Relations ? Public Policy. > ? > ? Please note new address: mposluns@accglobal.net > ? > ? Phone 416 656-8613 > ? Fax 416 656-2715 > ? > ? 36 Lauder Avenue, > ? Toronto, Ontario, > ? M6H 3E3. > ? > ? We offer Canadian parliamentary debates by topics and bills. > ? -- Michael W. Posluns, The StillWaters Group, First Nations Relations & Public Policy. Please note new address: mposluns@accglobal.net Phone 416 656-8613 Fax 416 656-2715 36 Lauder Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M6H 3E3. We offer Canadian parliamentary debates by topics and bills.
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects