Spiderfish

It's refreshing to see that some rational minds are still involved in decision making, and are not willing to compromise sensibility for a dumb media stunt.

I have a feeling you would not place much value on his opinion, honest or otherwise, so I'm not sure what the relevance of this is as far as you're concerned. The much revered "founder of medicare" and CBC's proclaimed "greatest Canadian of all time", Tommy Douglas had some pretty strong opinions about homosexuality and what should be done with chronic criminals. I guess opinions are subjective...

He despises workers, the environment and science?

One of my preferred hobbies is composing and recording...considering the cost of hiring a live orchestra, the headphones and a bit of computer software was a bargain. I too am happy for making this choice.

I just picked up a pair of Roland RH-5 reference headphones. For the price, they are pretty good, nice flat response through most frequencies. I'm using them mainly for digital recording and playback monitoring.

I have to disagree, the difference between 128 and 320 kbps is night and day, I can pick it out a mile away. It's one of my big gripes about satellite radio, it's obvious that it's all 128 mbps bitrate music. The high frequencies sound like a 1980's vintage video game half the time. I used to compose a bit of music for a buddy who designed websites, I had really good success with variable bitrate compressors, nice small file size with a minimal degradation of high frequencies.

I was thinking the same thing. Perhaps a few more band councillors and chiefs should go on hunger strikes and spend a few weeks in a tent...the perspective they gain may move things in a positive direction for their communities.

It serves no one's interest in accepting unqualified individuals into a position simply to fill a quota. It's unfair to everyone (not to mention dangerous in some instances), including the individual who is put into a position they are not qualified to hold. I've seen first-hand the problems this creates.

I agree, I think qualification for the position should be the first line item in the selection process, regardless of race or gender. The feminist movement got the job done in the 60's and 70's, creating likely the single biggest social change in our country's history. Maybe the affirmative action movement should take notes.

I can't disagree there are strategic advantages in recruiting individuals of different ethnic backgrounds, however deciding who gets the position based on ethnicity or gender is discrimination, plain and simple. Perhaps if non-whites are not interested in applying for certain positions in which their participation would be beneficial, we should find out why that is, and focus on encouraging their application, yet still employ fairness in deciding who is accepted.

I suppose none of the numbers matters much if you are the one being denied access or admission while the person beside you is not because of the colour of their skin or their gender.

True, but the democratic system works on the median consensus of the population. If you don't contribute your vote, you are not part of the consensus. From my point of view, I would rather be part of a consensus, even if my contribution is of miniscule effect, than give up all the decision making control. If nothing else, at least I will have confirmed my stance.

I'm not attempting anything, just wodering why someone would join a discussion if they had nothing to contribute other than accusing people of rulebreaking and making sexist remarks. Actually, never mind...none of my business.

Yes, I read the thread. I read your post on how kimmy is sexist, bcsapper violated the rules in a number of ways, on and on. What I didn't read is a single post in the thread contributed by you that really had anything to do with the topic being discussed.

This post is directed at no one in particular...the newspaper obviously condones the practice of publishing personal names and address information, so they should have no problem with having their own information published. Apparently, if it's not illegal, it's fair game.

Fair enough, my apologies for wading in...

msj... I have no dog in this hunt, but i have a question. The remark being discussed had nothing at all to do with you, it was a comment made by someone else to someone else. Why did you feel you needed to get involved?

Regardless of what betsy condones or condemns, the newspaper obviously condones the practice of publishing personal names and address information, so they should have no problem with having their own information published. Apparently, if it's not illegal, it's fair game.

Many people who I've talked with who don't take an active interest in politics or voting say that they don't vote because they feel it doesn't matter how they vote, it won't make a difference in their lives. I'm not sure if this willful ignorance truly reflects their loss of trust or relevance in the system, or if it's just what they say to mask their lazy indifference. I tend to think that many who don't vote just don't care to take the time to educate themselves and don't truly understand the power that voting gives people. I once tried to talk to a co-worker about a political issue, and he just stared at me like I had two heads until i had finished. He then exclaimed "you follow that crap!?" I explained to him that there was no single investment I contributed to in my life more than my government, and damn right I followed that crap. I think it went right over his head. I have always said that the number one thing government could do to combat voter apathy is change the tax system so that people were responsible for their own taxes rather than their employer. People look at their tax contributions as just some automatic chunk that disappears off their paycheque, they don't equate that as money they have earned that they are contributing to the government. I can tell you first hand that when I was self-employed, writing a large cheque every 3 months when my quarterly installment came due made me a whole lot more interested in what the government was doing with the tax dollars they were given. Of course this would not work, people in general are not responsible enough and government would spend all of their time chasing everyone for their contributions. But people have to realize that the money that mysteriously disappears off their paycheque stubs that they never look at is money that they have earned.

Until the next deranged person picks up a gun and starts killing innocent people and advocates of this inflamitory act of branding every legal gun owner as a potential threat start blaming legal gun owners as the cause of the violence.

Yep, and you can be sure they will. And if there's a rash of gun thefts from residences in the area in the next few months, they will be triping over each other to get the story out and make a buck off their own irresponsible act. And if violence results from it, there will be more finger pointing by the media, but you can be sure they won't be pointing the finger at themselves.

It certainly gets reported more by the media. "Innocent kid gets shot" makes a much more contraversial story than "burgler gets shot while committing a crime".

This seems to be nothing more than an article designed to be controversial for the sake of ratings. I find it rather ironic that they cite concerns about the Newtown shooting as motivation to publishing this information. There are many out there who would argue that the over the top attention the media gives to these killers and their actions contributes to the problem of mass shootings. These clueless self-proclaimed societal saviors run around crying crocodile tears and playing scary, ominous soundtracks to their superficial stories for ratings every time one of these shootings take place, then they have the gonads to proclaim that they are taking action by violating peoples privacy. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

I agree.

So, are you saying then that what they did was wrong, but the fact they made some idealistic point about not taking rights to their fullest extent makes it right? Not sure I'm buying it...I think some people would call that sucking and blowing at the same time.