Jump to content
A Note on Topic Titles – Be Clear & Descriptive!

Derek 2.0

Senior Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    8,138

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Derek 2.0

  1. Derek 2.0
    How about the city of Kitimat: http://www.kitimat.ca/EN/main/business/invest-in-kitimat/port-of-kitimat.html and some more figures: http://www.kitimat.ca/EN/main/business/invest-in-kitimat/port-of-kitimat/statistics.html
  2. Derek 2.0
    The question best asked though, is to whom will be doing the partitioning, how many years to achieve and how many lives will it cost.
  3. Derek 2.0
    I believe his reasons......once his name was first mentioned, I looked up his website, saw his calendar is well booked through the Fall and called it a day.
  4. Derek 2.0
    And Ready's response: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-teachers-strike-vince-ready-declines-mediator-job-1.2684027
  5. Derek 2.0
    pleh thgim ti ,rorrim a hguorht cigol siht fo esnes gnikam yrt.......hctaM.teS.tnioP
  6. Derek 2.0
    Are you suggesting Saddam didn’t start the Iraq-Iran war? I need not do further homework, I’m just trying to understand your opinion……You’ve stated the Middle East was stable prior to American meddling, because of Saddam, yet fail to confirm your opinion on the use of chemical weapons by Saddam, on his own populace and that of Iran…is that a stabilizing factor? Is starting a war with your neighbour a stabilizing factor? By all means, rearrange your goal posts, fore I find your stance to be on shaky ground.
  7. Derek 2.0
    So I trust you view Saddam’s invasion of Iran as illegal? And as a follow-up, would Saddam invading Iran, in your mind, foster stabilization within the Persian Gulf?
  8. Derek 2.0
    Why would you assume that I would do such? None the less:
  9. Derek 2.0
    A cry for help?
  10. Derek 2.0
    Certainly, but some members could also take some of these views as what they are, choose to respond or ignore…….instead of calling for his head. And with respect to that member, what do most others do in response to most of his posts? Is it narcissism to eek out a vantage point unpopular with a majority of posters? Say for instance in one of the numerous topics encompassing all things Pax-Americana……If the majority takes a position critical, and a few members (BC2004 and Shady for example) attempt to take a counter position, the trend appears to diminish their contributions in a disparaging fashion…… Same goes with past topics surrounding religion and Christianity……In my opinion (as a devout agnostic) I find the level of discourse in these threads, namely from those on the disparaging side of organized religion, to be utterly disgusting and argumentative…..A great many members with these views though I might find agreeable in other topics, that of course, in my mind, is reason enough to continue in other areas….not call for an outright ban of said members.
  11. Derek 2.0
    And it would be fair to say that if you contributed a similar post, a great many members would succumb to joint and tendon problems in their hands well hitting the report button.
  12. Derek 2.0
    Though after clarification from smallc I don’t believe he meant harm, one could very well read the post as a personal attack……..Subjectivity indeed. Now couldn’t the same courtesy be given to the “Great MLW Troll”?
  13. Derek 2.0
    I don't doubt you are sane, but do you honestly feel, at times, other members might not take umbrage to some of your posts....so much so, they might consider these examples as trolling?
  14. Derek 2.0
    Very soon to be two, plus the wage rollback.......which translates into ~10% of their annual income, and of course, contract teachers can't collect EI....None the less, I’d assume that most Canadians would find it difficult to contend with a loss of a months wages.
  15. Derek 2.0
    Not respect, but indifference (or avoidance) if that's how you view the member.
  16. Derek 2.0
    That clearly depends on the member and the topic…..
  17. Derek 2.0
    Do you claim Saddam’s use of chemical weapons against his Kurdish population and Iranian soldiers, in a war he started, as a stabilizing factor? You suggest I’m running well you provide closing remarks….. What rules are you implying I'm breaking?
  18. Derek 2.0
    In your opinion of course......could not the same be said for all members?
  19. Derek 2.0
    Nor do I.....There has to be some level of moderated decorum, in my view that would include the deletion of advertisements/spam and individuals that posted potentially libellous statements….beyond that, Lord of the Flies…
  20. Derek 2.0
    So you're ascribing to Saddam’s reign as the pinnacle of Middle Eastern stability? I wonder if these folks agree:
  21. Derek 2.0
    My opinion of Iraq and the Middle East in general have no barring on what time period you subscribe the region to being stable.
  22. Derek 2.0
    If you feel my points are simplistic, surely you should have no issue in addressing them.
  23. Derek 2.0
    You stated: What other countries do you speak of? Surely the Iranians didn’t find Saddam’s meddling stabilizing…..but of course, the Americans were involved in the Middle East long before Saddam was born……try again, but put more effort into it, you’re boring me. At what point, in your view, was the Middle East stable?
  24. Derek 2.0
    Who defines what message "serves no constructive purpose"? If one looks at any MLW members posts, one could find posts best described as nothing more than banter, with other posts described as offensive and argumentative……Who decides on said subjective rulings? Clearly the moderator in his own fashion.
  25. Derek 2.0
    I already did in the linked quote......In essence you stated the Middle East was stable prior to American “meddling”……I asked you to define stability in your view.
×
×
  • Create New...