Rue

Thank him? are you friggin nuts? Why because he has opinions? Why would I thank him for having opinions? More to the point he is an obese racist-sexist-anti-gay, anti-progressive, hate inciting, ignoramus. Thank him? He should thank the US for his ability to become a multi-millionaire by being able to make a living farting on the radio. This is someone who raved and ranted against drug addicts while himself a drug addict. Thanks? Someone tell the fat idiot to shut up.

Yes. Absolutely. No doubt in my mind had Hussein stayed in power by the time he was done there would be 500,000 dead but that is not the point. This reasoning you use that its o.k. to leave some psychotic mad man in office because it kills less people then trying to get rid of him, sorry I can't buy into that. Why? For a couple of reasons. Morality is not just dictated by one factor such as the one you seem to be relying heavily on-because if it was, it means none of us should do anything when people suffer and die. For me, this blame everything on the US is bull. The inter-secretarian fighting between Muslims has killed and will continue to kill millions and that has nothing to do with the US as much as you keep using the US as a scapegoat to divert attention from that fact. The US as a scapegoat does not change the fact that the majority of the Muslim world is run by facist dictators who rely on brutal political police forces to kill, torture and brutalize to keep people in line. If the US is so evil, tell that to all the Muslims who come to the U.S. seeking the very things you seem to loath. Did the US kill innocent civilians, yes. Should the Bush regime be criticized for using its military in a political exercise in Guantanamo Bay to deliberately violate the US constitution and make a mockery of it, yes. Should Chaney and Bush be criticized for a corupt contract free for all that has innundated Iraq with Haliburton parasites and a private security force larger then the US armed forces, yes. But no, do not think for a second I criticize the US for throwing Hussein out and holding him to justice or for fighting terrorists. I criticize some of their policies and certain specific actions, but not their decision to do what everyone else wants done but did not have the integrity to do. No the US is not the scapegoat for what ails Islam and Islamic society-fellow Muslims and their decision to use their religion as a pretense to engage in violence and terror is.

There is an old Yiddish expression AmWo; "it is pointless to tell a man whose teeth you pull out one by one, that it would be worse if it were his fingernails". Lao Tzu said, " only a fool would suggest wind is mightier then water-they are both equally as capable of eroding resistance ". Someone ought to point out that whether one is gassed, slowly tortured, starved, shot in the back of the head, worked to death, to suggest one makes the other less state sanctioned or signigicant is absolutely assinine. Of course the people in the concentration camps were starved to death slowly. To suggest that makes the holocaust less of a holocaust is insane. But then I find the kind of people that engage in these debates have no conception of the absurdity of their denials precisely because they are priviliged and their minds can not flex and imagine what hell is-yet. That reminds me of a Zen saying, hell is the denial we create, no more, no less.

Your comment is shocking to me. Think about what you just wrote. If in fact Jews died of starvation and disease in no way would it mean that wasn't state sponsored and deliberate. Your then trying to engage in a pissing contest to suggest since more people starved in Kampuchea or with the Ukrainian slaughter lessens the meaning or impact is precisely what some of us are calling out. One genocide has nothing to do with the other nor would one genocide make the other any less significant or less morally repugnant- an evil does not make another evil less evil and I am suprised I would have to advise you of that. It is precisely your kind of reasoning where you engage in comparisons of death rates as an exercise to lessen moral depravity which is at the centre of this debate. Are you deliberately revising history to rationalize genocides by playing one against the other to make one or all of them not seem as bad as they were? That is the concern people like me have. We know why Socred does it. He has a clear anti-Jewish agenda and does not hide it although he tried to couch it with me in a response before he let it fly again. In your case? I genuinely believe you have no agenda other then to seek accuracy and the truth. That is why I challenge you, not because I question your integrity, just your reasoning. You will note if I call someone out as anti-semite it is in specific reference to a negative slur against all Jews not because they question the holocaust. I say it again. We should question everything. How else can we learn? Questioning is a good thing. People who engage in agendas to deny something that has happened open another kettle of fish. See me personally I don't wan them censored. I want people to debate them openly and show how wrong they are. I think that is far more valuable a way to deal with them then making martyrs out of them and putting them in jail and making them appear to be victims. What Socred ha again repeated and is a common misnomer is that the laws in Europe as to holocaust denial simply put people in jail the moment they deny the holocaust. They do not. Anyone who bothers to read the laws in Germany and France would know this. As for alleging an ADL-JDL conspiracy to put people in jail that is a complete and utter fabrication. Someone should also tell Buffy that the JDL never represented Jews nor claimed to-it was an extremist and tiny cell of idiots and the very laws Socred criticize are what put that idiot Kahane in jail when he encouraged violence. What I am saying is ysomeone wants to shoot off at the mouth - its a freedom of speech issue and I appreciate its a difficult one. Go over the line and counsel people to commit assaults and batteries and engage in property damage, then in my personal opnion I think that should be prosecuted as a crime no different then if you hit someone. Words can be weapons. It all depends on their context. The context they are used in and the intent of their speaker is the key and very rarely are criminal laws used in Canada for this. We have a case right now in Saskatchewan with a former aboriginal leader who said hateful things. The point is the aboriginal community immediately came out and spoke to the Jewish community and condoned what he said. The point is his words were stupid and hurtful but putting him in jail is pointless. His words did not incite violence. Had they incited violence, maybe then it might be a criminal matter. They did not. All they did was expose the speaker as an idiot. He was stripped of his Order of Canada. Doing anything else will only turn him into a victim to be pitied the last thing that should be done. If Socred bothered to actually read what the ADL and B'Nai B'Rith are defending they would see it is not jail time for people who deny the holocaust-its a uniform law that contains anyone who incites people to hurt others and its not particular to Jews and someone should tell my friend Buffy its been used by the Muslim community in the US to protect themselves from hate crimes. In fact the ADL has defended Muslims against anti-Muslim violence and Muslims in turn have supported Jews in the US and others for the same reasons. No this Jew and the ones I know do not want to arrest anyone. Thanks but I prefer to take them on in the open. If they do facilitate a crime, then yes I think the Crown should lay charges and establish they committed a crime. I do not think the criminal code is the best solution and should only be used in extreme last resort cases when nothing else works. It was only involved with Ernst Zundel after he and his followers were caught red-handed engaging in batteries and property damage and other crimes including selling drugs to minors.

Socred you stated and I quote; "Organizations such as the ADL and the JDL have conspired to accuse anyone who questions the holocaust as being anti-semetic. In fact, they've conspired to create laws to have these people put in jail." Then you state; "I'm not the one casting innuenedos." Psst, read what you write Socred. The above is a blatant example of the very thing you claim you are not doing. Socred with due respect the Jewish Defence League is a group of about 60 angry Brooklyn Orthodox Jews, get real. They do not represent all Jews, and certainly are not mainstream. For you to use them as your basis to again deliberately engage in an anti-semitic slur that Jews are engaging in conspiracies is bullshit. In fact your comments are absurd. Some of the strongest supporters against hate laws in the US, are Jews who take an actiev role in the civil liberties movement and do not want holocaust deniars muzzled. Your attempt to engage in group negative generalizations which you assign all Jews is bull. Your description of all Jews as "they" and then suggesting they are conspiring to create laws to put people in jail by the way completely contradicts your denial that when you engage in words like "them" or "they" you were not referring to Jews. Your own words betray you and show your true intent-which is to slur all Jews when you discuss the holocaust, with negative characteristics designed to incite resentment towards Jews and suggest we are evil.

Myata I may disagree with you on many things but not one thing-it is a tragedy that Iraqi civilians have had to die. How much of that though is simply the fault of the US? DO you really believe if Hussein was still in power things would have not resulted in the continuing death of innocent civilians as well? No Myata I can not defend the death of these innocent people. All I am saying is what if in the long run less end up dying then had the Americans done nothing? As well, for me Myata, I can't rationalize Hussein being allowed to engage in genocide of Kurds and kill thousands of his people and get away with it. I also think Myata with due respect, much if not most of the deaths you see in Iraq are caused by terrorists not American soldiers and it has nothing to do with liberating Iraq and everything to do with these terrorists having contempt for their own people as much as they do any American or Westerner they try scapegoat for their problems. But yes Myata, the killing of innocent civilians by anyone makes us all poorer for it and people have to be responsible for such actions and there is a fine moral line between terrorism and anti-terrorism at times.

Ambassafor Xul of China it is I the Ambassador from the Land of Wiseguys, allow me to respond to your nations latest remarks stated through your office; "In my comprehension, the concept of a country was defineded by historical factors, such as treaties between nations and the results of wars, not by people's votes, races or ideologies." Not all countries have been defined by wars although I would concede it sure as hell seems that way. "Everyone knows Canada was found by British and French immigrants, of course and so-called First Nation, American Indians." The aboriginal peoples of Canada are not "so-called". I am not sure if you meant it that way or its just the syntax because English may not be your original language, but "so-called" in the context you used it, means you are questioning whether the aboriginal people are just that, aboriginal. Well they are the last time I looked. Last time I looked they were here for many years before anyone from Britain or France set foot on North American soil. . "But the foundation did not due to all these people's willing and wasn't by a peaceful vote." Well yes Louis Riel might agree with you and so would many aboriginal people, but many other aboriginal people and most of us would concede no Canada has not been racked by civil war nor was there any violent war that created our country. In fact our bi-federalism, our constitution, or parliamentary traditions and all our laws have been designed to do exactly what they have done, assure the peoples' popular will has been followed and through peaceful means. Our country continues to evolve and peacefully through its political and legal processes define its identity and in particular its aboriginal and French components. The point is your classification of Canada as a violent result is not accurate. "I guess for a long time, the conquerors were happy and some of them are still happy meanwhile the people who were conquered were unhappy and some of them are still unhappy." This is the key point you have missed and I think you are being snide and disingenuine about. As much as our legal history with aboriginals is lacking and full of mistakes, our Supreme Court and our legal process recognizes them as equals and autonomous something China will not do with its Tibetans. Nice try though trying to use the arguement that Canada is evil to aboriginals so China can be evil to Tibetans. Not only is your arguement based on a fallacy and defective comparisons but its illogical-even if it could be shown Canada is as evil to its aboriginal peoples as China is to its Tibetans how would that morally make either acceptable? "If we adopt the principle of countries could be defineded by races or cultures, why couldn't we agree South Africa's apartheid policy was better? " Tibet is not South Africa and to suggest it is the equivalent of South Africa and an apartheid state is as absurd as your trying to suggest Canada was created by violence and we treat our citizens no differently then the citizens within China. Again nice try but its nonsense. The desire of Tibet to be autonomous is absolutely no different then what the Supreme Court of Canada has already recognized for Francophones and aboriginals and for that matter all minority groups in Canada. Say now does China have a human rights code. No didn't think so. "---everyone knows Negro majority was unhappy under the white minority rule in the country and I guess white minority is unhappy now under the Negro majority rule. " Say now someone still uses the word negro. Haven't heard that word in awhile.In Canada we call them folks black people or if you really want to get smart ass, Lt. Ohoura's bruthas and sistahs but not negro. Er not unless you want a big negro to hurt you. Try calling them blacks. Safer. That said, your attempt to compare the Tibetans desire for cultural and spiritual autonomy with South African caucasians is disingenuine. "If a country could be defined by religions or ideologies, why there wasn't a liberal-Canada, a conservative-Canada, a NDP-Canada, a Islamic-Canada or a Lamaism-Canada?" See you really missed the boat on the above comment. Canada was founded on a Christian ideology and it remains an integral part of our legal system. Christian and Jewish legal principles are very much implemented in our legal doctrines and we now embrace aboriginal principals as well. Absolutely. The point is the country was created as a Christian nation and it will always remain an integral part of the nation's psyche. All Western democracies were created as Christian nations. for that matter all Muslim nations based on Sharia law were created as and remain Muslim nations. India is a Hindu nation. Israel is a Jewish nation. Your point? What has happened is as we have evolved and embraced democracy and freedom of individuality and the right to think freely and have different religions is that our governments have become religiously neutral so as to allow many cultures, religions and ideologies to peacefully co-exist. It may seem to some we have rejected Christian ideology but I would argue we have not and should not but are simply adding others because that is precisely what democracies allow. The freeedom to choose. Think how absurd your question is. The very reason China is trying to suffocate the Tibetans is precisely because of its need to impose by its state religion and ideology. China's religion and ideology is the state is the only organ allowed, and what it says must be and you know that. That state organ consists of layers of elitists who get their power by marching in step with the central organ of the Communist Party of China . Question the state's control and people like XUL will ex-communicate you no different then what the Roman Catholic Church will do. The only difference between the Vatican and China is one calls the head the Pope the other the Chairman of the Communist Party. They both are old farts surrounded by layers of cronies who punish those who do not follow the imposed dogma. That is the problem XUL and the essence of the issue. You follow a vision where all must conform to the state's needs and put their own interests to the side. That's nice XUL and I must admit when you have over a billion people it probably is a practical necessity but it doesn't change what it is- an organized faith system-the fact that one may use Latin and sign songs of Jesus and the other talks about the collective needs of the state is just words-the purpose and function is the same-control the masses. You Sir subscribe to a collective and when you see anyone not wishing to be part of that collective you condemn them and want them brought under control. We like to call people like you in North America, Borgs. It comes from Star Trek a t.v. show. Please go find out who the Borg are. If you really want to understand the Western world's concerns about Chinas' ideology and how we perceive your collective find out about the Borg. By the way there is a character called 7 of 9. She was a Borg but escaped the collective. Please check her out. When she was created she was meant as a visual comment. Part of our fascination with China is we hate your collective ideology but we find your women beautiful. So 7 of 9 was symbolic of that-a beautiful woman representing the women of China-but none the less someone whose character we see flawed by its lack of individuality. Now Xul you went on about A and B but it made no quantitative or calculated sense. The formula is actually quite simple is it not? China is X. A very large X just like your name. So we start, CHINA = X. Along comes Tibet. Tibet says, Tibet = T. I could use the letter B since it is the first letter of Budda's name. I could have used M, but that is the first letter of Mao's name but I use T since it is the first letter of Tit one of my favourite words. So you follow, China = X. Tibet = T. Now Xul comes by and says no, Tibet = X not T. Either China recognizes Tibert or it does not. China can recognize Tibert through an autonomous relationship where the borders and government administration remain part of the Chinese government but the spiritual practice of the Tibetans and their historic traditions are honoured, as we now do with our aboriginals in Canada and French in Quebec and across the country, or you can crush the Tibetans just like some Canadians want all aboriginals and French crushed and hey anyone who doesn't speak English or who has a tan. By the way XUL, maybe you want to go back before you criticize Canada too much and explain China's human rights record since 1949. My favourite is when Mao wiped out millions who failed to rehabilitate themselves. Do you still own the little Red Book or did you replace it with a book on predatory pricing? If you make toys or tires come clean and tell us.

With due respect Eyeball and everyone knows I am not a Conservative, you are way off base. Stephen Harper was the first Canadian PM, Liberal or Conservative to speak out against China since the Korean war and it was my ehro Trudea who made a point of sucking up to Mao not the Conservatives. Fair is fair. This Liberal aint about to pretend otherwise. Bill Clinton enabled China to create the most powerful and influential lobby on Capital Hill and took millions in support from them and basically sold out the US economy to them. The people who suck up to China are from all political stripes. If anything in Canada, Jean Chretiens went their on his hands and knees and performed oral sex like a yapping seal on a trade junket. Fair is fair. Some of the biggest opponents of China are US Republicans who support Taiwan. In Canada, Jack Layton is consipicuously silent on China for a baboon that yammers on about evil Canada in Afghanistan. The point is, China's economic fangs have a lot of people of all political ideologies by the balls and its precisely why they protect Sudan and enable a mass continuing genocide in that country, keep Iran from collapsing, and run roughshod not just over Tibet, but the world with their human rights autrocities and predatory pricing practices. Where were you when the Liberals and NDP were badmouthing Fatboy Steve for having the nerve to criticize China?

If I'm not mistaken Billy Crystal's bretheren are strategic targets as are all civilians. What are you suggesting they engage in a battle with someone who would fight back? Are you crazy? They could get hurt or something.

Well. The word "them" refers to Jews. The context you use it in is that Jews are engaged in a conspiracy to accuse anyone who questions the holocaust of being anti-semitic. That is the context in which you advanced it. So explain what you mean by this question. Are you suggesting Jews should be arrested? What would you do? Care to spell it out or do you wish to couch your words so we know what you mean but you can avoid saying it? Do you care to do more then cast inneuendoes?

So let's look at your reasoning. You come on this forum to state two generalizations. The first states that ANY one who questions the holocaust is being accused of being an anti-semite. You provide no examples of this making it clear this is a subjective generalization you render which is not based on objective and quatified fact but simply your subjective feelings. That Sir makes it suspect and quite frankly absurd as you are not in the position to speak for or assume anything about anyone's motives or thoughts but your own. You then state a deliberate anti-semitic slur which is precisely the example of why people would accuse you NOT ANYONE else of being an anti-semite. It has nothing to do with questioning the holocaust and everything to do with you making a deliberate slur and choosing to engage in a negative generalization and characteristic you assign to all Jews.That Sir is bigoted and a blatant example of what is called out as anti-semitic. You came on this post to lecture people that they should engage in a dialectic process. So explain how making negative and absurd generalizations about what people think and what their motives are engages in a dialectic process. How is it anything but Jew baiting? How does it do anything but try incite intolerance and hatred of Jews and resentment towards Jews? You Sir do not engage in a dialectic process. Are you capable of discussing anything without race baiting or is that your agenda? Where?

I again say, its f..cking hard to know the line. We think we know when the line is crossed but do we? Trying to draw that line is very difficult. The name itself although I appreciate many found it insulting and maybe that is what it was intended to be, did not or does not become insulting, until there is a context in which it is used that can then be looked at. Its the conetxt that is the key to determining when the line has been crossed and not just the word or name. Some names, you are right, they are blatantly inciteful. That one, its a tough one. Its not blatantly racist or sexist. I know some of you find it insulting. I respect that. All I am saying is the moderators have to wait for some context before they can really decide. Why I am defending Greg and Charles I do not know. Lol. No seriously, I would not want to be them. At all. As for you guys that found the name insulting, your words, your responses, are what counts. You all responded logically and rationally as to why you did not like it and won't condone it. That is what counts. That is the best way to deal with it, your rational words.

I hear you!

I agree with Mouse that what Roy did was completely idiotic and needs to be soundly dealt with. It was trash. He deliberately sent his son out. Why? His son is a very bad third string goalie. If his son is suspended its no big deal. If the guy his fool son went after is suspended, they take out that team's first stringer. All that was, was a deliberate tactic to take out through suspensions some of the other team's stars so Roy's team could win. Its not a matter of winning fairly, its a matter of using suspensions to manipulate the playing field. Now as for fighting in general, hockey is a body contact sport. Take out the body contact and the sport ends. It is that simple. when players fight, most often, they are only releasing pent up energy from the body contact. No one gets hurt, the refs come in fast, and quite frankly not much happens. The kind of fights where someone is injured are few and far between and its not from fighting, its from players who won't fight and instead take cheap head shots, use their stick and kick with their skates. Players who fight are not ruining the game, its players who are too cowardly to fight or hit a man cleanly on the boards. The problem is players are not learning to play the body properly and cleanly. If they did, you would not have all these high sticks and head injuries. However we bring children up with cages and discourage body contact so they get their energy out with the cheap shots. I coached high school. Believe me kids who hit cleanly and play the body are not the problem. Its the cowards who won't. Also the problem is the parents acting like fools. A kid who plays hard and clean doesn't injure anyone. Its their dumb parents screaming in the stands. I went to John Ferguson's hockey school. He never let anyone fight but he expected us to play clean and hard. So did Gump Worsley the other grouch with him. Don't confuse fighting with this baboon behaviour. The giving the finger to the fans, the bench clearing, that's not fighting, that is theatrics. Its not the same at all. A legitimate coach does not allow that. Some of you just don't understand hockey. Should your kid fight, no. Of course not. We should not encourage it. But we need to teach kids how to play the body cleanly and keep the stick down. If kids fight, they get penalties and we don't condone it. When you get to Jr. A if you are good enough, at that level the intensity is such there will be fights. However clean fights are not the problem. Its dumb coaches exploiting the fight aspect to engage in theatrics to gain an edge. Remember Colorado and the Bertuzzi incident? Had Bertuzzi had a clean fight and faced the player, there would have been no problem. He chose instead to jump him from behind. That was the problem. It wasn't the fighting, it was the cheap theatrical stunt of attacking him from behind. In retrospect Bertuzzi would be the first to admit that. The actual injury is the result of sheer idiocy but it should not be confused with a clean fight. There used to be a code with fighting and the player who knew he won would stop. Today's players have not been taught this code of honour.

Top, putting all the foreign politics aside, I have given up on the Olympics because I personally feel it is permanently and hopelessly corupted. Its no longer an amateur gathering and about sportsmanship and good will. Its big business, sponsorships, corupt regimes sending corupt parasites to feed off of the perks of the Olympic government structure. Its all about sponsorships who is kidding who. Everyone cheats and so it bugs me. If you could say to me Top you could guarantee me a true amateur event with no corupt sponsors, and an event that was completely apolitical, I would say great, but it isn't. Look I hate the Chinese political system and what it does in Tibet and Sudan in particular as well as its predatory dumping trade practices. But to be fair, if we boycott them, show me what other countries are pure and innocent. are there any really? Some days I believe the entire world is one corupt mess and its not just 1 or 2 countries and the people who usually point out a country is corupt, are even more corupt. So I don't knwo Topaz. I am just not into it anymore however if someone still believes in it I would not knock them down for it and say enjoy it then.

I hate war. I hate people who hate soldiers. I have when the above happens. I hate a lot of stuff Angus. But this I know. I have heard and seen people with every political and religious opinion hating, and hating soldiers as they hate many other things. Its what we humans do, hate. We hate because as you saw from some of the above responses we make negative generalizations to rationalize or justify hating. Our strong subjective feelings get caught up in our perceptions and cloud our judgement. We make negative gerneralizations that only leftists (what-ever they are) spit on soldiers just as we do that soldiers are evil. Its all bullshit. Its all human. Its all about making negative generalizations. No more no less. Doesn't matter who does it, its equally as bullshit and leads to intolerance and hatred. Its funny many on this board think I am right wing, others left wing. I am both, I respect soldiers. I also I know I am full of shit and hate and that is not a good thing. I won't speak for anyone else in that regard just me.

Lol JBG almost gets it. Yoh JBG a lot of people grip themselves and take it seriously cuz they are lonely. Me I prefer the real thing. Either way I guess we should all give ourselves a big hand now and then.

Hey Am I am serious when I say try laugh at it. When I was young I needed to get stoned to be able to laugh them off, now I can just laugh. The good think about aging is you develop existential dementia and it helps. The absurdity of precisely what you say is what makes it funny. I think its hilarious when some pervert tells me I am evil and going to hell, etc. So I say, " uh yah it would sound better if you stopped pointing at me with your edible dildot Padre..." Oy. Humans. To think what we do with peanutbutter let alone rightreousness.

Oleg not to worry. Its like an artist who sculpts something and some pedestrian has walked by and says-its shit. You now respond, of course its shit, that is what I work with, but he thinks you are being a smart ass. He won't slow down long enough to notice it is shit you work with. I must confess Oleg, the only guys I knew who worked with shit, tended to me in the mental hospital where I was an orderly once. They used to eat it to. They had issues I guess. Lol. I could have used you to help me hose them down. Oleg ee might get it when he gets a bit older and stops trying to jam his concepts into rights and wrongs, blacks and whites and is able to laugh the righteousness away. Too much anger right now. I suspect in his case, it would actually frighten him to know why you don't have the luxury to feel guilt. As well Oleg, I have no doubt your son will inherit your unique insights and the world will be a better place for it. I admire your ability to resist being angry when you see it for what it is worth and yes you do make good sculptures out of it. Its just you know they smell so the smell bothers people. I have no idea how to sugar coat them any more then you do.

I concede Higgly we both were heated-BOTH. I am no angel and you know that. I am a large jack ass on many instances. Just ask Buffy the Zion Slayer. She still won't come to Toronto and buy me a beer and arm wrestle. Had you stated the full context as you now explain, I think you know by now from what I have said, I would agree with you that both assumptions are similarly inappropriate for the same reasons. I can understand why Palestinians would not feel Jordan is not a Palestinian state. They see it no different then Israel-to them it would be just an artificial colony created by Westerners. You know I know that. Travelling through the West Bank, I know that very well. You and I know Jordan can not go anywhere no more then Israel can, and the King of Jordan (both today's) and his father, have been positive, constructive influences in the region. Their moderate influence has been crucial in many peaceful relations, but you and I know the same people who would try destroy Israel would do exactly the same to Jordan if they had a chance, and Jordan is in identical danger. All you or I ever tried to do was debate as best we could. O.k. so the nose came out of joint. Its what happens. Who cares. We move on. Unlike many, you work hard to read what I quote and vice versa. I know you read things outside your comfort zone. You have demonstrated that. Also everyone can agree on one thing about the Middle East, the Queen of Jordan is a babe man. An absolute knock out babe. Oy I have become a dirty old man. But its true.

I could say the following stupid thing which is true; my next door neighbour is a Muslim (from Pakistan) and he's a very nice, gentle, good man. Completely true. But that is as relevant as me saying it in reverse, i.e., I met a Muslim and he was rude and ignorant. Some posters particularly Keng, in each and every post on this forum use that device as the basis for their opinions. They tell us they spoke with a...(fill in the name of the alleged group member) and therefore ALL people in that group are bad. Keng does it continuously but others also do it and its just dumb. Basing our opinions on the subjective encounters we have with certain members of a group to then assign a generalization to the entire group and assume its accurate, is fallacious. (that sounds sexual, I mean illogical!) That's the problem with these discussions. They all come down to our subjective encounters with the people of the group we encounter. o.k. I have met some incredibly nice Muslims and some incredibly stupid or ignorant ones. I can say the same for my group (grumpy but sometimes witty and never smelly Jewish men) or any other group, i.e., other Jews, Christians, gays, Maple Leafs fans, curlers, sewer workers, on and on. Its not a basis that provides a rational, logical and therefore accurate meaningful basis to conclude things. When its discussed he way Argus has, he uses specifics andnever once says he believes all Muslims think the entire same way and makes it clear he is discussing cultural traits that MAY cause us to see certain behaviours. Is that unfair. No I am not saying we can't do that. I am just saying while we can explain certain political and cultural experiences may shape how people are likely to act and can explain things we see, they are just that, potential or possible explanations. We all use cognitive processing that labels things with generalities to make what we see and experience easier to understand. Its human nature. All I am saying is for me personally, while I appreciate people from certain cultures and political experiences are more likely to possess certain opinions or exhibit certain behaviours, I try not to let it cloud my free choice and that is when I meet an individual for the first time, to try find something in common and not use such knowledge to assume difference and therefore rationalize the worst. O.k. so I am a pollyanna that way, fine. But I think that is the point of some posters-they are just trying to argue these generalities may not always be accurate nor should they be used to justify intolerance. Then on the other hand, what Angus or others in his line of reasoning have said, is we have to be realistic, and no some guy who comes from a country and brings his intolerance and fundamentalism to Canada, isn't going to magically become a Canadian and be tolerant-just not going to happen. We see classic cultural clashes now transpiring as people from certain cultures collide with the culture values we assume as givens in Canada and its why some people ask-is it realistic to just think we can bring anyone to Canada and think they will not experience difficulties accepting our values? It has been my subjective experience that I have never met a Muslim, not even my nice neighbour, who differentiate Zionism from Judaism. I do not buy this bullshit arguement for one second they aren't justa nti-semitic, just anti-Zionist. That is bullshit. Absolute bullshit. All you have to do is listen to see the concepts fuse in the words. What I am saying is, I do not let such negative experiences cloud my hating Muslims or not trying to talk with them and challenge them on things I think they need to be challenged on, just as I do not mind them debating me in return. The key is mutual respect. That is all I am saying. I am not going to go around hating Muslims or anyone else. I save that for Keng and these days Hilary Clinton and Jim Flaherty. (that was a joke! I love you all hugs kisses shalom my brothers and sisters)

Keng states: "All of the Muslims that I've talked to have at some point either tried to convert me and/or gone on about the Jews and how they control the media. All of them." Sounds like you have the exact same things in common as the people you have claim you met.What was your point?

Probably more due to the fact that when you look at the rates of sodomy at that age and they have, straights are more likely to engage in sodomy since young boys convince young girls if they sodomize them its o.k. because they remain virgins. The prohibition against sodomy applies to gays and straights. From a practical point of view no I do not think you will have any butt police patrolling the streets looking for signs of anal penetration although they might want to start at any church. Woops. Couldn't resist. Politicall inappropriate and mea culpa.

Maybe he had a track and field scholarship at college and you misunderstand what he means. The race is twisted and the wascaly wabbit or speedy gonzalez (hey a Latino on amphetamines and everyone thought it was cute) or that bleepin road bird always win. Me on put my money on Pepi Lapue. Taught him everything he knows.

Er I would love to but I am not your father. In fact I do not know for sure who my father is or if I ever had one. You can if you want call me Golam. Personally I think I come from rotting vegetation. Call me the "Swamp Thing" if you wish although DC comics has a copyright on it. As for your thought processes, thanks I pass. First off I probably don't have enough anti-depressants to share with you and secondly all they will do is make you smile and say things like "that's nice" as you stab someoone. There's a problem with the consistency in these thoughts you might not like. Probably better off preserving your own. Also is that a trick question? I am not sure how ghosts wrestle. Its kind of hard what with no substance to grab on to. You dig?