jdobbin

It seems inevitable that this will happen. Think I'll be withdrawing from participating on the board at this time. It has been a good run and I don't question the dedication of Greg and Charles in keeping the forum running smoothly. I know how hard they have worked in both design and moderating things. It has been great in terms of lay-out and subject headings for discussions. I won't be posting anymore although I'll likely keep reading some of the threads simply for the insights. I might send a note or two to people personally if something strikes as something I just have your thoughts on. Some of the posters here have been extremely interesting over the years. Some I have clashed with repeatedly but generally were never boring. Sometimes it has gotten quite heated. On occasion, I have stopped engaging with a poster or two to avoid a continuation of something that ultimately was negative. To any an all posters, I thank you and to some, I'm sorry if words or actions were more than just mere disagreement. I wish everyone well and if there are any developments on the board, please let me know. Once again, thanks for forum and thanks to the people who filled it with their contributions.

I noticed that aspect. I've tested it out with your post. One of the thing I don't like about the comments section on media websites is the voting up and down (not to mention the anonymous nature of the posters). In fact, I don't read the comment sections because it is rarely insightful. The voting seems even less insightful. Perhaps if the positive or negative thumbs up came with the posters name attached (kind of like Facebook's Like button) then there might be some accountability in choosing to click the button. Then reputation would fall in two directions. I will mull things over a bit but it is the type of thing has caused me to depart other forums.

Think that would be regarded even more negatively, don't you think? That's communism! ha

I don't think anyone will be happy with the plan. What alternatives do you think should have been considered?

The numbers are still mostly unknown. Some stats start at 80 and run to 110. Haven't heard the 400 people number but it isn't impossible. Between 12,000 to 30,000 Canadians volunteered for service in the war. No one knows exactly how many. There are still 7 Canadians missing in action in Vietnam. One of those Canadians won the medal of honour and became a prominent businessman in the U.S. I have known a few Canadian Vietnam vets over the years.

Exactly. And here is a teacher that has taken a art class and elevated it to cover history and civics. Students researched their material in a way they might not have done for a class before. It doesn't get much better than that for education.

First I've seen of that. Well, for sure it is Ignatieff's fault now that this riding wasn't won by the Liberal.

It looks like it started with a good teacher. I've often wondered if there was a way to recognize great educators more clearly. Queen's Educator (QE) after their name perhaps?

Looks pretty good. What exactly is the typeset? The same as the rest of Mapleleaf was? Still playing around with it but it seems to be a nice clean lay-out. Good work. How long in the end did it take to roll it all out?

The sponsor of the bill say gun registration is ineffective. http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2140623 Surely she means all gun registration and if not, why not? Quit acting as if the Tories only mean long gun registration is what is ineffective. Or do you believe that handgun registration is effective? Why? How? Please explain?

So if the BQ is opposed, it will earn support from the voters there? You said Ignatieff went to a riding? Hill Times said he has avoided campaigning since it was thought it wouldn't help in ridings that would have been hard to win even the numbers were 5 or 6 points up. I'll be watching but my expectation is that all the seats should be retained barring any last minute unexpected developments.

There, you are doing it again. It seems the best strategy is to avoid you altogether.

Still think the question has to be asked if registration is ineffective, does it mean all gun registration. I'd like to know that before the next election. People seem to not want to touch the subject. I said it was odd. I didn't say conservative writers thought so. What I said was some conservative writers are wondering aloud about if it meant money being diverted to regional max prisons. Until the article, I hadn't heard that. Reynolds didn't think it was a good idea. For either. They do. And the public probably expects more. As for what it has to do with this, I think that given the urban rural divide many say this represents, it was probably worth a discussion to find solutions to the problem. All parties seems to beyond that. I've often wondered about the legislation on the back end as well. It fixes an election at four years but does it compel the Governor General to call one if the government doesn't want to go to an election? The federal court said Democracy Watch didn't have a case about calling and election. Does that hold true if the government holds out past the date while sticking to the Constitution? If things could get done one thing at a time. Mulroney's changes were ambitious and ultimately, there were a lot of unknowns about the outcome. I don't see Senate changes on something like how many representatives a province gets happening without horsetrading on a host of other constitutional issues. I think there mere thought of the possible chaos it could cause is too much for many people to bare.

Those provinces that were mentioned must not have had the shutdowns then since they had a steady supply from the roll-out day. In Manitoba, they have to shut down again for three days this week because there is no vaccine.

So people outside Quebec cities are big on long guns? I believe it has been a few pollsters inside and outside of Quebec that have said in a low turnout by-election, the three federal parties exposed themselves on the long gun issue which is important in Quebec.

So the clinic closures in many provinces are the result of the provinces not distributing the product they have? Where did you get that info?

And you are someone who seems to personalize. Can't you just deal with the argument and not the person. I realize you keep saying this was about the long gun registry but Van Loan and others didn't make that distinction when they said that registered gun don't protect police. They didn't. They said registration is ineffective. If it is ineffective for one, why would it be effective for the other? What answer do you have? Think I'd rather know the answer to the important question of the registry's effectiveness overall but you want to shut down that debate. I certainly don't want to hear about it after an election and then you telling me then how it makes sense.

Waited a few weeks to comment on the CBC's revamp in their news department. The National News with Peter Mansbridge was mocked for the absence of the desk. They tried this back in the Peter Kent days. It was silly then as well. Looks like they have stopped Peter from pacing around out there. I am still assessing the main news. I think the CBC News website has improved. The CTV website has become worse and from what I have heard there have been a few complaints about the change. Haven't noticed a difference in the radio news aside from the fact that they changed the opening music again. I can't remember what they call those opening notes. Anyone remember? The Politics show is interesting. I will wait a bit to assess it more. My impression of Solomon prior to his being named was that he might not be evenhanded. That comparison of course is measured against Don Newman. My gold standard for tough but affable goes to Tim Russert. I'll wait a bit more to see how things pan out. I will say this: I miss the National and Journal combo. I don't think we shall see those days again but I do miss the gravitas the show had then.

We have talked about this before. If the argument is to say science is never settled then it can apply to smoking as well. They use the word "risk" and "could" and "possibly" and "might" when talking about the outcomes.

You are correct. It has to do with barrel size as well as length of the weapon.

I have asked for more discussion on registry. I want to hear what the police say and if we need to poll their numbers, all the better. I'd rather there be disclosure. I have called my MP to push for that type of hearing in the committee. Handguns are on the registry. If the registry is useless as the Tories have claimed then it stands to reason that this would hold true for handguns as well. I'd rather hear about where the parties stand on the issue rather than wait until after the next election if you take my meaning.

And most people can see where you are going with things and that is on the personal level. Why do it? I realize it is must annoy you to point it out but you are doing once again in this post. If you don't want to see something from a poster, put them on ignore. It has to be better than what you are doing now.

Nothing in your family woodpile?

One the main arguments against the registry has been that it is ineffective. It isn't semantics since a registry is what covers handguns as well. if one is ineffective, is the other one just as ineffective? Is that the next step in the process? I have said that I opposed the registry since I favoured a focus on licensing. However, I wanted to hear what police said about in detail before dropping it. However, if the registry is regarded as useless, why is it around for handguns? Surely the same arguments against it stand, don't they? And if they don't, why? If you want to debate this, don't keep repeating that handguns will never be dropped if your argument is that the registry is useless.

Think my argument from the beginning has been that the Tories have argued that registration is ineffective. They certainly won't remove it from handguns with a minority. However, if the argument is that registration is useless, surely that has to apply to handguns as well. Right? I just find it odd and conservative writers are wondering aloud as well. The Neil Reynolds article in the Globe and Mail was particularly pointed saying the Tories wanted to move many prisoners frown low to high security to super regional prisons with the money saved from cutting elsewhere. Don't think I argued that. I was pointing to changes the Tories have made that didn't require any debate but probably should have. I also didn't argue that a majority for the Tories is more dangerous than any other party's majority. I am saying that they would do things they presently wouldn't tackle just as the the Liberals did when they had a majority. Some of those things from both sides, you probably wouldn't like. I could go back and look but I faced a barrage of attacks saying it would be impossible for Harper to call an election. I don't believe the law would apply to a majority government either. In short, a government can make any excuse to call an election and not violate that law. As for the Constitution.... as soon as it is opened, expect everything and a bag of chips tossed in. It will be hatd to control the process even for something small.