Charles Anthony

The secret is out! Now, try to guess the color of my skin or my favorite television show.

Mainly because the homeless usually occupy "public" spaces which in turn are under the "authority" of municipal governments. I am grasping at giving government a role in this matter. Thus, I would rather a lower level of government be "responsible" than a higher level of government. Everybody other than homeless people often have more choices when it comes to settling their problems with respect to shelter. To put it a different way, the OP discusses an issue which is nothing more than a luxury. My sympathies -- if I were to have any -- go out to the homeless before it goes out to others in this matter.

CAVEAT: I realize that it would be necessary to sift through every single study and verify the technical details about how every single trial was conducted. I am not going to do that. I am just looking at that last video. First, the person asking the questions was clearly sitting in front of each contestant-child. Thus, the responses of the child do not represent "answering to the questions" but rather "feeding the adult" more accurately represents what the child was doing. I would prefer that these "tests" presented each contestant-child with more than just two dolls (example: 5 black dolls, 5 white dolls) and then be asked to divide the entire group into "good" or "bad" piles of dolls. I say this because of how I personally observe children answer questions posed to them by adults: 1) children mean to impress and seek recognition from adults -- the right answers are secondary 2) like everybody else, children use trial and error until they get a cue from the adult which suggests that they succeeded Thus, if I ask a child which way to the candy-store and the child points to the left, unless I say: "Excellent!" or "No." the very act of asking a second question can be interpreted by the child as the following response: "Hmm... I do not think so.... maybe I should choose the other one..." and the child does not even think of the meaning of the second question. Children quickly learn that adults are NOT honest and adults troll or fish for information indirectly. Ever ask a child "Hi! How are you doing?" only to have the child purse his lips and look to his parent before responding??? That is how some children behave. Children seek approval first and foremost. If the child only has two dolls in front of him, it is not surprising for the child to pick up the second doll on a follow-up question. Second, there are a few examples in the video where children selected the black dolls. That might suggest that questions were unbiased. It is hard to say. Third, the testimony of the young girls was disheartening. I can not imagine what it would be like to have a mother lather me at the age of 6 years with skin-bleaching cream. As a kid, we swam competitively so we constantly smelled like chlorine but I do not think that counts. The social implications were probably not the same.

One more thing, I believe the purpose of this CIBC research-forecast-report-press-release-whatever is simply a glorified advertizement. All they want is their name in the papers and we are currently feeding their marketing strategy. Anyway. Excellent! I like your imagery. jDob, I am deleting my post #2 and providing a link to your archived version above. I lay the integrity and safety of my original post in your guardian hands. Thank you in advance.

refer to jDob's archive in his post #4 below.

I do not follow your logic. If the Crown could easily prove the weapons charges, they could easily send him to jail for a minimum of 100 years -- something they can NOT do now -- without having to even consider the assault charges. No?

The benefit is simple: you can pay bodyguards to carry guns and protect more than just themselves.Your school or shopping center can hire an armed body-guard to protect the students or the customers. That way, not everybody HAS to carry a firearm.

Forgive me but this: is painfully difficult to accept. I challenge you to identify: who asked what?

Inspired by the #1 video on google.ca in the Bursting Bubbles of Gov't Deception thread. I do not think there is a right or wrong answer for this one. However, I think it is worthy of debate. Providing a link to a video as a reference or a citation to support a claim or an argument in an internet forum is lame. I would still like to afford it some validity but it certainly ranks up there with: - using poor grammar - writing illegibly - writing in a foreign language - a doctor explaining a diagnosis to a patient with over-your-head technical jargon - linking to a poor-quality PDF file which is nothing more than a scanned image file as opposed to coded text - misfiling or hiding your book in the back of the library where nobody can find it - excessive use of sarcasm None of these situations condemn the validity of an argument but they make them less convincing. If a video is to substantiate a claim or an argument, it would be more convincing if a selection of the transcript is provided or a reference to the timing. For example, "Chicken Little explains why the sky is falling -- fast forward to the 3h46m16s mark -- in this highly entertaining but unnecessarily over-produced video." Otherwise it is ridiculous to expect somebody to watch an entire video. My main beef is that on the internet, the more readily accessible the information, the better it is conveyed. Videos are not as accessible as plain text. Now, when an Opening Post contains only a link to a video, I am prejudiced against the thread and the author. I believe the author should be more responsible by putting more work into substantiating the claim. The reader should not have to repeat the grunt-work of an author's research. I realize that this is a question of degree. A balance between "more easy" and "less difficult" is subjective. However, I would expect that the longer the duration of the video, the less likely anybody -- other than the choir! -- will endure the preaching. --- Along the same lines and if we forget about videos, a link to an article without any quoted relevant text is lame also. --- I would also like to add that linking to anything other than a webpage is lame too. (word-processing files, audio files, picture files, video files are all bad style). However, such is life.

There are a few things that stuck out about this oath. I want to attempt to discuss the oath itself instead of just being a cranky ass. Here goes. 1) The oath just sounds like a 12" extended version of the American presidential oath of entering office -- with an extra break and an attempt at modern day sampling tossed into the mix. [it seems like somebody either hit the punch-in button too many times by mistake or needs to learn how to splice tape properly. I am not too sure which.] 2) "I will not seek to destroy anyone's property." seems oddly out of place to me. My first thought was "Yeah! Now we are talking!" but the statement seems unnecessary. The oath may as well contain "I will not run red lights nor evade taxes nor litter nor leave my horse untethered on the street." Pardon my sarcasm but my point is that it is a statement to respect one particular law of which there are many others. Also, the statement sounds quite simple [in fact, I would say that it is close to being sufficient as an entire summary of all law, however, that is for a different discussion and not this one] but acting upon it is not -- it is defined arbitrarily by "the law" the oath portends to uphold. I would ask: Is respecting anyone's property on par with "the law" and allegiance to the monarch? is it distinct from them?? In our current State of affairs, I would say "No, it is not on par. It is quite subordinate." despite my desire for it to reign supreme. 3) "I will not pervert the law to favour or prejudice anyone," is peculiar. It sounds like fluff and I genuinely do not know what it means. It makes me ask: In practical terms, what is "the law" that leaves it open to being perverted by one person? As an aside, this is quoted from the OP article of the current Photos of Injured Iraqi Released thread: The GuardianI am curious to know exactly what that guy allegedly did. 4) "So help me God." is intriguing -- not that I mind. In general, I believe the oath should be simplified to: I, [insert name of lawyer], of the City of [insert place of residence], in the Province of Alberta, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II her heirs and successors according to law, that I will, as a barrister and solicitor, conduct all causes and matters faithfully and to the best of my ability. I will uphold and maintain the sovereign's interests and that of my fellow citizens according to the law in force in Alberta. So... help me, God? ---- Guy and Geo, about the plagiarism, I hope you did not think I was part of the Children of Satan club, did you?!?!? Heh heh. All I did was highlight some random text and do an internet search thusly: "The crime of fraud is a psychological consequence of the offer, made by the sect," -- not difficult. Often, you get more focussed results if you place quotation marks around your highlighted text in the search form box.

Enough said. Not the most reliable source of political action. Sorry but "if this is true" is certainly the operative phrase.

Big deal. What is your point??? To what standard are you trying to appeal?If enough people who disagree with you vote against you, you lose. Keep in mind, nobody has to justify the reason for their vote.

The projections on that website are more than a year old. There is also very little information on that website that suggests how those projections were made.

A century ago, this pathetic loser boy would have probably been taken out a little earlier at a card table. That could also explain why we never observed as much mass murder in the past. They would not need to each carry a gun. There can concievably be a cheaper and more effective way. Would you feel safer if every hallway or every class-room had an armed security guard? I would. I am stumped because I suspect that you are being sarcastic. I will respond assuming that you are NOT sarcastic: you should trust your fellow citizens up to a point where they are bearing the full cost of those potentially dangerous devices. For the life of me, I can not understand why you would fear an individual owning any of those? It is no wonder that currently only statesmen seem to have a need or a use or a budget to afford nuclear weapons or rocket-propelled grenades. Your questions are as valid as asking: "Should an individual have the right to own a space shuttle? How about an AdScam?" Even better: "Should an individual have the right to go to war?" Anyway, the answer to your questions is simple: Yes to all of them. Here is a challenge for you: why not?

What is going on here???The Children Of Satan by Luther Blissett plagiarism reported

In our current State of affairs, people comfortably yield so much control and power. However, they do not demand that public areas be protected. Bizarre. Anyway... Tim Hortons banned smoking in their restaurants long before it was legislated. Every time I go into a nightclub, I am patted down for weapons. I have a different proposal: take the regulation of guns out entirely from federal jurisdiction and leave the municipalities to decide how to deal with guns themselves. Amen. Amen. It is a wonder to me that people do not demand more armed police patrolling the streets. Theoretically, they should have the power to do so and no valid excuse not to do so. I have posted this elsewhere: Gun Registry - Gun Crime Measures Wait a minute. Your distinction is hard to accept because the territorial barriers between "country folk" and "city dwellers" are gradually fading. Although I disagree with its conclusion, this post adds a refreshing tinge to the thread: Unfortunately, the existance of guns makes it easier for bureaucrats to de-personify crime.

Do you want your post #78 to look like this: There you're in the realm of the nonsensical again. This notion you have of 'in commerce' is incoherent. Well, look, there are validly enacted statutes that specify that you ARE required to have a license and insurance, your 'private capacity' notwithstanding. I can agree with you that such a method could be a reasonable substitute for public liability insurance, but if the statutes don't accept it, the statutes still apply. Lawyers can do whatever a normal citizen can do in terms of creating trusts or being trustees. They also have license to hold client money or property in trust under the terms of retainer agreements. As I am trying to separate my body from the gov't issued person you may infer why I ask. I can see that you don't believe there is a distinction, oh well. In all honesty, I have no idea what you mean. Other methods can be used if Birth Certificates are unavailable. Such as? Different agencies might accept different documents or proofs. At the most extreme if you have no luck establishing your identity you can apply to the court to request a ruling to establish who you are. No. How so? Why would a judge speak on my behalf if I don't wish to 'plea' or beg? Am I obliged to beg? I don't hold the judge out to be an authority over me. This is a legal power judges have... to enter a plea of not guilty if the defendant is absent or won't speak. All it means is the crown is put to the task of proving their case. Also, it doesn't matter what you think of the judge's authority. Perhaps your problem is that you aren't able to distinguish between normative arguments and descriptive statements. In that particular case the incorrect premise in your question is the implicit assumption that there is/needs to be an injured party. ? If I am correct in my presumptions, let me know. I will try to PM you indicating where some of your typos were located. Alternatively, you could just look up the code of my responses.

I am willing to help. First, your post #46 fails to display properly only because you used too many quotes. You did nothing wrong. For some reason, the forum software bugs out and fails to display properly if a post contains more than ten quotes. The only way of having it display properly is to spread your response out over more than one post. The others are slightly different. I could not correct the mark-up on all of your quotes -- your variations identified in bold -- because that would actually take them above the "ten quote limit" bug and everything would fail. Do you want your post #77 to look sort of like this: No, the finder of fact can evaluate the credibility of an unrebutted affidavit, just like unrebutted testimony. The affidavit (thanks for the sp correction) I use states I am a living, breathing human being and not a corporation/person in commerce. How would one go about rebutting the affidavit when the truth stands before them? Without knowing very much about where you are trying to use it, I don't think your problem is that anyone is rebutting your affidavit. I think your problem is that your affidavit is likely irrelevant and possibly nonsensical. Sort of like this... Source please. Source? Okay -- The Vast Wisdom of Figleaf (unpublished). It doesn't matter. Both. See above. Above, you refered to a municipality. They are often corporations. Canadian provinces are not. Children are not property. You can own your dog or your car without registering it (but you can't drive it). You seem to be under the mistaken impression that sovereignty is a matter of contract. It's not. The government makes no claim in property over your car by having you register it. Automobile registration is a regulatory matter, not a property matter. Les, I don't wish to be insulting, but your complaints are almost all based on a radically mistaken understanding of the foundations and premises of our laws. Yeah, I'll get right on that. ? Continued in next post due to quote-limit bug.

Export permit? Steal their own trucks back??? Who forces them to have an export permit? Why should they have an export permit?

... not if Elizabeth May can pull in higher ratings and more viewers.

Slow down. You are attributing an obligation on the networks to broadcast debates in a particular way. You have no right to do so. They can invite or exclude anybody they want.

For the same reason that we have a lot of other wonderful programming on television: the networks choose to broadcast it.

Do you have anything to add to this article? any additional comments to report? The forum is not a journalism update ticker. Forum Rules and Guidelines

The request has been sent to Admin.

???Maybe it is just me but I get the feeling of slipping through a sci-fi time warp on this one.... One of us is clearly losing it.