Charles Anthony

A couple of reasons: 1) just to be different 2) some people (myself included) like to either use initials or to slightly alter (as in the way you addressed me just now); I want to make sure that the ID is ultimately clear; for example, somebody might mistaken you for having addressed ChuckYouFarlie instead 3) it is possible for a user's name to be changed but the link to the user will not

continued in Provincial Seperation -- Should provinces be permitted to seperate?

extracted from the The Kadr problem again -- Is this really a problem thread Prove that it does not make a difference. http://www.defencelaw.com/utter-threats.html Thank you for quoting somebody else that agrees with your preference. Luckily for you, they have the state to enforce their goals. Now, we can be sure that anybody who is perceived by the state to make a threat will be crushed by the state regardless of whether that person is capable of carrying out that threat or not. Now, to complete your argument, all you have to do is prove that a unilateral declaration of independence is a threat of violence. Your quote does not say that it is and you have yet to prove that connection -- although, you have repeated the statement. That depends on who is declaring it. I would rather be beaten with a stick than with a baseball bat. Thanks for the choice. I would say that separatists are not obligated to be ruled by people other than by themselves -- particularly much less by people outside of their province. By the way, can you identify what one of your acceptable "legal options" might be? Your example is more ridiculous than mine but can I quote you on that nevertheless?

BadDog, your link is a little biased. Might you have added a "the people who denounce "the left" for focusing on some issues" filter to skew the results? I understood the statement the first time around but I am looking for proof or a justification for the statement. Prove that it does not make a difference. You are stating that the person intends to use violence or the threat of violence. That sounds like something that would be "generally used to persecute political opponents" if you ask me. I want proof or a justification for you conclusion. You are not giving one. You have the concepts of Statism and self-determination reversed.

As a point of order, I notified Greg about having the thread re-located. I agree and I think that is why God made sex enjoyable. I do not mean to be crass or comical but rather, I am very serious. In the grand scheme of things, it is interesting that the only force that can battle the selfishness of Groucho Marx is an orgasm. If sex was just like chocolate (I never understood that one...) we would probably all die out as a species. Thank God for the random mutations of DNA that evolved that way! I think that is more important than our DNA. This reminds me of hearing somebody explain (I believe it was based on Jewish tradition) immortality by focussing on how we preserve ourselves in the memories of people we leave behind.

This sounds like chaos! We can change that. You do not have to go anywhere or you can resign your civil servants. Being in a jurisdiction that has both provincial and federal separatist parties, you are one of few Canadians whose insignificant vote can actually directed us away from this federal bureaucratic absurdity. John Lennon said "The war is over" but he also said "(if you want it)" too.

What exactly do you find horrifying/interesting: the source or the information?

What imaginary thing is posing a threat? Prove it. Correct. Like I said, "If the people making the unilateral declaration of independence do not have the means to commit the violence to secure their claim of sovereignty over a territory against your legitimate government, it is twisted politics to claim that they are inciting violence -- unless you can prove they have secret weapons of mass seduction hidden away somewhere." If I ran stark naked into a bank (I know, I know, I am shuddering at the image too...) and swiped my debit card and demanded all of the money from my account be withdrawn immediately by saying "Give me all of the money in my account!" while pointing my finger in imitation of a hand-gun to the bank-teller sitting behind a bullet-proof glass, you may call the state's men-at-arms but it does not stand to reason that you should feel physically threatened by my rightful demand. That is your UDI by Canadian separatists. Excellent! I agree. How does that make it different from any other crime? Why should he not get due process?

So, who won the poker game in Olymel? The CBC reports: CBC NewsThe rest of the article clearly reports that the laborers are accepting pay cuts. Interesting. The Gazette reports that this was not a new contract. The union voted to accept the same concessions that they previously rejected: The Montreal Gazette It is often not WHAT you say but HOW you say it. In this case, the CBC reported something that is misleading, in my opinion. Information and ideas are free and the CBC gets tax-payer's money for its operation. I have a lot of trouble accepting misleading information particularly when some one else gets it right and reports it right. Maybe I am grasping at straws trying to cut down the CBC for being biased. I second that.

That is an interesting take but it sounds like something that BushCheney would say. Violence is not necessary for separation. Therefore, if you want to take a moral stand, I would put the onus of proving a threat of violence on the first aggressor. If the people making the unilateral declaration of independence do not have the means to commit the violence to secure their claim of sovereignty over a territory against your legitimate government, it is twisted politics to claim that they are inciting violence -- unless you can prove they have secret weapons of mass seduction hidden away somewhere. Has there ever been a court precedent in Canada which ruled specifically in that regard or might that just be an a$$umption on your part? Now, we are getting warmer! I see no reason why Kadr should be tried for treason. Do you? I does not matter. Nobody gives a damn about this kid and he is at the mercy of people who use the same excuses as

I do not understand this question. Please rephrase it. If you fear that the Google company has devised a secret way to hack into websites and find confidential information, that is technically possible. However, trouble-making hackers and spammers attempt to do the very same thing all of the time. Thus, whatever security holes the Google company exploits will likely be discovered by others too. It would be dificult to keep those exploits secret. I may be misunderstanding you but it sounds like you are confusing different things. First, if a search engine does not index a site, you can not conclude that the site is invisible to the search engine or that the site was not spidered by the engine's robot. The search engine may have simply judged the site is not worthy enough to be indexed relative to other sites on the web. Second, you can not assume what is or is not in a search engine's index. Chances are that the search engines store much more than they let on. Third, if a human being can load up a website, the search engines can load it. Fourth, what type of scripting are you talking about? what type of "errors" do you mean? do you mean poorly constructed code/markup? or do you mean deliberately poor code to confuse the robots? CAVEAT: if the information in the website is contained in multimedia or proprietary software file formats, you can not expect the engines to extract it all. For example, a website on Money and Banking might have a vast wealth of magnificent information contained in hours and hours of videos. The only way of learning such illuminating wisdom is by watching and listening to the videos. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), the search engines will not be able to classify or rank the quality of information in the videos. Conversely, if text transcripts of all of these videos were included on the site, the search engine would be able to rank the site more appropriately -- for better or for worse. The same problem may occur with websites that are foolishly cluttered with amateur quality Flash or PDF files.

Harper has been in terms of dealing with Alberta since election. That aside, I really don't think the CPC is secretly protecting the myraids of drug dealers that fund and vote for them.You are misunderstanding or I am not being clear enough. It is to the advantage of the police to have illegal drugs remain illegal simply for the sake of their jobs. [i am open to the possibility that they have other unscrupulous vested interests too but that is a different story.] Therefore, the police will vote (and lobby and finance and crony) that way. You do not.

I have never heard of a "General Secretary" before. What is his job description in China, anyway? You are quick to change the aim of this hypothetical game. Here is something you might want to try in your hypothetical game: how to deal with a so-called "enemy of the people" during the Cultural Revolution Since you are "just a guy from Halifax NS hehe" I am sure you have never seen that strategy before. It must be completely foreign to you. Do you mean like an assignment?

I second that, FigLeaf. Personally, I care very little about whether this 15 year-old boy committed crimes or not. I am very much afraid of everybody else who is so cavalier with violating personal freedoms. Some level of Polynoia might be healthy. I would rather this kid be set free and the secret trials be eliminated.

It got there as a guest viewer. On a technical standpoint, "Google.com" is only able to see or collect information that guests can see or collect. The reason why it appears as "Google.com" and not as "guest" is because the Google program sends a self-identifying signal to the website. Therefore, the forum software is able to identify that the Google.com robot is currently loading the website. You could be right. However, your vulnerability would still exist with any guest or spammer or other search engine or any other nefarious computer user. The take-home message is that NOBODY can stop "Google.com" from surfing or searching the website because it uses the same capabilities as a real-live person who is surfing the web.

I believe the connection is even deeper. Primarily, the politicians are catering to the teachers. The parents just ride the wave: as teachers are protecting their jobs, parents get free day-care. Some of my cynical thoughts on schooling found in the B.C High School portfolio thread.

I like that point. It suggests that the plaintiffs preferred the settlement of $1000 over determining human rights from wrongs. They preferred a Hugo-centric law or arbitration -- as most people do. -- because it can NOT be decided.

This is a monumental step forward in my opinion. It is not. I agree, the REAL example from the Opening Post is equally wrong as YOUR example. Do you agree with me?

He was facing legal expenses by the COERCION of a tribunal that is funded by TAXES and thus, has deeper pockets than does he.

I fail to understand why. Are you suggesting that banks do not hold our hands the way brokers do?

Yes. If I ask an insurance company for $10,000,000 in coverage, are they going to give it to me? No. If I was willing to pay $10,000,000 a month in premiums, they might consider it... but I am sure they will request a two month minimum before the policy is effective.

That is a fine statement. The insurance companies just will not insure everyone or anything for much money. That is all.

In your case, it seems like you should be safe. My accidental death policy specifically has the "act of war, insurrection, etc." exclusions. To be fair for the purposes of discussion, the article suggests that the policy in question has a specific exclusion and the insurance company is rightfully off the hook. On the other hand, if the widow's policy is like yours, ArmyGuy, the insurance company is trying to cheat her.

Wait a minute. Can you find ANY insurance policy that does not have an "act of war, etc." exclusion clause?

It is a search spider or a robot. It is an automated function of the Google engine. Other search engines (and spammers for that matter) do the same. What the Google engine is doing is it searches out the internet and examines the text. It is a program which is analogous to loading up websites and activating the various links and indexing keywords. The Google engine updates its database routinely. Technically, if somebody does a specific search in Google for "Canadian Politics" there is a chance that they will see a thread from this forum. In fact, that is how I first found this forum. [Although, I wish I could remember what my exact search was.... probably "how to trash socialists" or something like that.] I guess you are all thinking now that Google is such a wonderful thing, right?