Michael Hardner

Jefferiah, and Kengs, It seems to me that your complaint is with the justice system in general. Suits or complaints have to be pursued once filed, that is the process. Conrad Black was, back in the day, accused of causing 'libel chill' when he subpoenaed every person who was associated with a writer, who was working on an unauthorized biography. Your complaint is with the general process, and doesn't have anything to do with human rights complaints in particular.

With regards to your case, it hasn't even been ruled on yet from what I can see.

Geoffrey, This is a forum, wherein we discuss thoughts and ideas. There wouldn't be much point in a forum where we continually challenged each other for questioning someone else's deeply held beliefs.

Jeff, I don't think it is criminal to say that, at least in Canada.

I would add: Racist ideology can easily be defeated in an open debate. If you refuse to debate these ideas, and instead attempt an end-run around them by marginalizing and shaming those who espouse them, you will leave an element of doubt in the minds of those who are swayed by their arguments.

Oh, Scott has read plenty of books, is very intelligent, and a fine debater. However, like many smart dogmatics on these forums, he either chooses to ignore the contradictions in his own philosophy, or he just refuses to acknowledge them on these pages. The most blatant of these contradictions, which took me several years to discover, occurs in those who absolutely despise emotional arguments and emotionality in general. ( I think Scott would admit that he fits the bill here. ) Such people hold a Spock-like devotion to 'logic'. Yet, any logical person would find at least a few contradictions in those patently stupid bodies of thought that are 'party platforms'. And this never seems to happen. The reason for this gap is that the dogmatic person's philosophies are not based on reason, but on emotion. In this case, it is the subject's absolute hatred for the hippie bogeyman. The best you can hope to do with such people is to get a non-response. That indicates that they have given up the fight. And the best way to debate with Scott is to point out the lack of reason and the emotionality in his arguments when you catch it. Best of luck, I'm six years ahead of you and I don't think I've seen a point conceded even once. Lately, I've been accused of being a mushy middle-of-the-road type. Hmmmmm.

It has been explained to you countless times - the reason why such trolling gives no meaningful information. The last time I explained this to you (on your own forum), I countered your example by going to Google News and searching for 'vagrancy' or some such word. The results came back as 100% white males. I explained that even my little experiment, which barely tells us anything at all, is a better method than your method of trolling for crimes committed by Muslims, and posting them as proof of anything. I know you're smart, so the problem is not that you're can't pick up my point. The fact is that you are ignoring the truth, i.e. you are purposely behaving as an ignoramus.

Hey there Scott, You've never accused me of trolling before, but then again I've never had the luxury of posting comments from your own forum onto a respectable one such as MapleLeaf, so I'm not surprised that you don't have a response. As for this: So what ? Your discussion with Peter F ended with your call for proof of your 'whining'. ( His words. ) I'll accept 'so what?' as your first ever concession of a point another poster has made. Thanks,

Scott, I notice now that you're in favour of deporting all Muslims from Canada. Some might call this a case of you overplaying the 9/11 victim card. I would be one of those some. It would be unusual for a masterly scholar like yourself to over react in this way, if it were not for your long record of over reactions on your own forum. Carry on, if only for our amusement.

Betsy, I may have pigeonholed you without cause. Sorry if I did. I took this comment of yours to indicate that you're anti-immigration: "This multi-culturalism is only adding fuel to the fire. "

Betsy, So you're not Canadian either ? Or are you an immigrant ? What country are you from ? Is this a case where you want to 'close the door behind you' so to speak ?

The healthcare system suffers from inefficiency because of 'two many chiefs'... Can we imagine how much worse it would be in Ontario, if we had to get backroom approval for every move from all the parties supporting a minority government ?

Betsy, Do you have evidence of this, or is it just an observation ? Not to say that your observations aren't valid, only that mine are just the opposite. Of course, I live in Toronto.

Leafless, Your accusations have no foundation in reality. When pressed, I'm sure you'll come up with some anecdotal 'evidence'. Immigrants continue to build this country, as they always have.

Hey Scott, It all comes down to "the left's" view of society, which is identical to yours in that you think that there are a lot of stupid, and easily led people out there. Being a student of history, as you are, (.... sorry ... a master teacher of all recorded events of world history ...) you know that it has happened time and again that certain groups blame certain other groups in society for their problems. The results can be horrifying, I don't need to tell you. Hate laws are a tool to prevent that from happening, and that's all. They need to be used carefully, it's true, but we're better off having them. You, being a squeaky wheel forever needing grease, don't care that such laws provide a safeguard for minorities because they might prevent you from using the n-word in mixed company. Sorry to restrict your freedom, Scott. Cheers,

Hey Scott, Sorry to intrude, but Peter F might not be as intimately familiar with your arguments (especially on other boards) as I am, so I thought I might lend a hand in the interest of enlightenment. I took about 45 seconds to search your posts, Scott, and found what I think qualifies as you whining about 'brown people' on your own forum: Scott's Hardball Scott's reply: That's because as we're over there thrashing the little brown people, we're over here importing them just as fast. To, to summarize, you're saying that people with brown skin are the cause of Toronto's murder rate. Please correct me here, if I've misunderstood. Cheers,

Jennie, I haven't had anyone yet explain to me where the 'flaw' is, except that the current system isn't mathematically perfect. They say it 'wastes votes', which seems to mean that if I vote for a candidate who loses, she/he doesn't get to go to Queen's Park. There are plenty of things about our system that are unfair. The entire house of commons sits under an unelected body that can reject all legislation submitted by the people. Cities are under represented in Toronto and Ottawa. The government of Canada effectively outlawed the Communist Party in the 1990s and seized its assets ! As such, I find a lot of the arguments in favour of PR to be strident. They seem to say that the system has this one 'flaw'. No system is perfect. The justice system is designed to let guilty people go in some cases, and there's nothing to be done about it. The measure of effectiveness of a democratic system is the overall result, and in Ontario the result of our democracy has been quite good. If we want to ensure that the Green Party or whomever gets a seat in the legislature, we can do that but redesigning the whole system seems excessive.

Auguste, I recommend the book - 'Life, the Movie' by Neil Gabler. In it, he explains that the world itself has begun to remodel itself around around our stories, our mythology. Certainly, that would explain the Clintons somewhat.

Kengs, These types of arguments for MMP make no sense to me. 'It works in other countries.' Our system has produced, in my opinion, a balanced system that provides the necessities of a social safety net while providing an excellent environment for business. So why do we want to abandon it, for a more mathematically symmetric system ? Our system works ! Countries like Italy have perpetual minority governments and constant deal-making between parties, but their system counts all the votes. Why choose mathematics over practical matters ?

I think that's just MapleLeafers having a larff... Certainly the worst of the posters I know and love here (I'm an oldtimer in these parts) are a cut above the average doughnot-shop proselytizer...

Auguste... We can't say. If we could, then generating a hit TV show or movie would be as easy as manufacturing a nail. What do the TV executives do ? Throw things against the wall and see what sticks. We would do well to understand this process better, though, as we might use such knowledge to get people more interested in politics. If we want that to happen. A better use of such knowledge might be to make politics less interesting for the general public. That could conceivably encourage politicians to raise the level of dialogue, so that it's directed to MapleLeaf-type wonks...

I agree with you. I think that MMP will slow down our political process from a crawl, to a slow crawl. Andrew Coyne, though, expresses rare conservative support for the idea in today's National Post.

It appears that the election has been called... Ontario Election

I don't think I have to prove that to you. As people have been showing you, the various papers on the topics seem solid. The initial claim that the fires didn't burn hot enough to melt steel were addressed. So far, we've discussed one point - the idea that bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the WTC, and have found that that claim is questionable. This claim: Strikes me as akin to saying 'How can doctors say what kills you when they're supposed to cure you ?'

PN, Hypothesis is all you're going to get, I'm afraid. There will always be an amount of doubt, however small it may be. A computer simulation is for display purposes only, it doesn't really prove anything. The proof should be in the report. As I said, I've read it and it seems reasonable. Even if you have problems with the report, it's a giant leap to go from that to the assumption that a conspiracy was in place. Those suspicions of their character were obviously in place before the attacks took place in order for you to jump to that conclusion so quickly.