Figleaf

Actually, no you didn't ask that.... what you said (way back on page 1) was that you "hoped I wasn't a teacher". Last time I checked, that wasn't a question. (Boy, now THAT was particularly pathetic... you can't even bother referring to what you yourself wrote.) Before you go braying foolishly about what's pathetic, you should review post #35 wherein I asked if you are a teacher. You have now attempted to evade that question several times -- so I'll just assume you have something you're trying to hide. More than necessary? Of course not. Once the person is restrained maybe! It's not necessary since I've pointed out that restraint precedes handcuffing and so handcuffing suffers from all the same risks. Actually, it IS necessary if you want to be believed... you seem to think handcuffing carries similar risk; I've pointed out several injuries caused by restraints... if handcuffing DID result in a significant amount of injury, you'd expect to see at least a few news reports of children injured by handcuffs. So, where are the reports? There is no point in citing such reports. As a simple matter of logic, handcuffing will require that the person first be restrained, and therefore handcuffing will have all the risks of restraining PLUS whatever risks the handcuffs themselves may bring. I checked other sources. Prison planet is accurate in that regard. And you haven't answered the question -- why do you suppose they put her through all that police procedure if they have no laws to convict her under? I'm pretty sure that one incident per year can easily be handled by sensible and practical education professionals, if such a thing existed.

I've about had enough of the double standard - not yours alone, concerning Israel If the people purporting to represent the areas where Israel is engaging in "establishment of illegal settlements" made any showing of being willing to not only suspend, but end, their struggle against the "Zionist entity" the settlement activity would stop. It's not a double standard. Its two separate questions that can't be offset one against the other. Why are you so keen to dictate which issues need my voice? ???When did I do that???

Continued... I asked first... do you think teachers should be put at more risk than necessary. I'm not about to answer your question until you start dealing with mine. Actually, I asked before that and you didn't answer. Like this time. Except that: - Handcuffing will likely be done by police, who actually have training to deal with uncooperative individuals .... The training the police have is entirely inappropriate for calming and restraining overwrought children. But as I've already pointed out, it is People who are putting the handcuff on her. It's not necessary since I've pointed out that restraint precedes handcuffing and so handcuffing suffers from all the same risks. Then why arrest her, charge her, and take her for booking? True colors shining through, my music Teacher once sang. You need to take into account the basics of capacity planning and service supply. Each ridiculous cranky-child call adds to the overall police level required. (Unless you're suggesting that we have too many police for the demand. )

Don't let your imagination run away with you. Please, stop the shouting, I'm not a schoolchild to be browbeaten. It would hurt. But how about not charging at her crotch-first? Or ... did I mention hockey equipment? Yes, I think I did. Anyway, have you read the article? What seems clear to me is that the teachers (and police) all reacted with shocking stupidity. Why did they keep provoking the child? If she wants to hide under a table, why not let her for a while. What happened here is that the supposed professional adults lost perspective just as badly as the six year old. You say that like you think I haven't had that happen! Hello! I went to kindergarden. When I was in kindergarden kids often stomped, tripped, pinched, or smacked eachother. But here's some important information for you to fold into your analysis -- kindergarden kids are small and weak. ????? But why on earth would you let her do that? Yes, some of the rules you've cited might have that effect. In those cases it is the rules rather than the individuals that appear to be at fault.

Believe it or not, I agree. Kudos to you. Interesting how the next post after yours was Figleaf arguing *again* in defence of Holland's actions. I'm arguing that we don't know Holland's actions in the way some of you have insinuated. It's great to see you concede that Hartgate needs to be investigated. Let them take a look at Holland if they like. Here's the likely questioning: RCMP: When did you find the box? H: Oh, about three days before the announcement I made. RCMP: Did you see the moving label on the box? H: I didn't notice it. RCMP: Do you know where 30-101 is? H: What? RCMP: 320-23. Where is it? H: Is that a zip code? RCMP: Thank you Mr. Holland, I think we're done here. Good day.

Well, that certainly encapsulates a recent example of a person I received a PM from recently! But does humanism consider us inherently good, or good-if-nurtured? Perfect or perfectible?

Hyperbole! When and how did you first learn that 323-022 means the PMO? What was the context and the source of your absorption of this knowledge, specifically?

Ah, okay, I see what you're getting at now. On the other side of that coin there are those who seem to get away with seemingly obvious criminal actions. I think we should start imposing at least professional discipline on prosecutors, police, and medical examiners who are shown to have contrived wrongful convictions. If I had my druthers, they'd go to jail, but professional discipline would be a start. I agree completely.

FYI, Guy-Paul Morin and Donald Marshall were wrongfully convicted and later vindicated. The other two have been convicted and not vindicated

How is 'Warwick Green' able to post whilst unregistered??

That same article (for which you inconveniently failed to provide a link) noted that Hamas explained that their abandonment of the cease fire was due to Israel killing nine Palestinians the other day. So it seems that your contention that Hamas started it is questionable. It's pretty hard to stick to a ceasefire while your counterparty is killing you.

Why do people come out with such inanities. Palestine was the name of the region as long ago as the Roman Empire. Yeah, right. There's an impartial source -- Not. I truly doubt Golda Meir was ignorant of the ancient Roman history of the region, and if so her pretense that the name dates only from the British mandate must be a deliberate deception.

I'll just take it that there are no proper sources for your claim. WTF, didn't I just tell you such sources were listed in past threads? Yes, Yes I did. So your assumption that there are no sources is clearly absurd. Ludicrous even. As proof of the ridiculous quality of your assumption, I refer you to ... http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....ilization&st=15 (see post #23). Well, you haven't answered my question, you've only added more seemingly pointless information. What do you suggest it adds up to in respect of the Palestinians' right to self-determination? And how so?

1. What do they know about them? 2. How do you know they know? 3. Do they know what 332-2 means? 4. What proof do you have to support your contention? +++++++++++++++++++++++++ ANYWAY, the point remains that the abandoned box itself may easily have gone unnoticed for quite a long time. AND, none of this nonsense about the box changes the import of the terribly incriminating fax suggesting someone paid off MP Hart to vacate his seat for Stockwell Day.

Hmmmm. So, instead of lawsuits for harms inflicted between citizens, you advocate vigilantism. Good luck with that.

Naturally, I will accede to your request. But, I'll just note here that if the simple statement 'reported' is touching off flame wars, it seems that such flamers must be violating the forum rules in their reaction to the fact of the report. It's likely an imperfect solution to indulge their viciousness by silencing those who stand up for the rules.

Then it is neglecting its obligations as an occupying power to supply order and security within the area. There is no doubt that Israel exercises military control over the region to the extent it sees fit from time to time. It continues to control ingress and egress at the borders, and controls the airspace and use of the ports. Neither does it end simply because the other side, in this case Israel, pretends it has. !!! Where does it say that? Nonsense. The Palestinian's claims are not based on sovereignty; they are based on the right to self-determination. I was just about the write that to you. Yes, and under international law Israel is not permitted to occupy and deny self-determination to a people and carry out a creeping annexation on the premise of protecting itself. I've never said any such thing. It would really go a long way toward bringing your posts up to a decent level of integrity if you avoided uttering scurrilous claptrap about other posters. Excellent factoid. Very informative. I'll bear it in mind. Yes, of course, Israel was utterly committed to building a utopia for Palestinians. Personally, I think your 'good guy'/'bad guy' characterizations are a troublesome oversimplification of the situation over there. If you persist in seeing it in those terms, it will probably prevent you from being able to sort out the rights and obligations that apply there under international law. I've seen little in Israel's conduct that makes that suggestion believable. The ongoing establishment of illegal settlements puts paid to that notion.

You simply coming along and SAYING it was clear won't change the facts. The label was yellow printed with black lettering. A scrawl on it in black marker indicated nothing but a short string of numbers in the destination area. It takes a fantastical or notably biased imagination to construe that as 'clear'.

The facts/events of 1973 don't change anthing about the facts/events of 1967 so I see no reason to 'explain' any such thing. But I'll share my view that after some initial carelessness that nearly allowed it's Arab enemies to win, Israel's comeback in the 1973 war was an example of strategic and/or tactical virtuousity. I invite you to review several threads on this subject from months past wherein those sources were cited. AND, do I take it that you have no response on the issue of what you meant to suggest when you said: "There wasn't a place called Palestine on any map from 1967." and "It only became a sudden huge issue when the Israeli's kicked everyone's collective rear-ends in 1967 upsetting everyone's plans re: driving the Jews into the sea." If you recall I asked what point you felt those comments added up to.

Buying carbon credits will reduce greenhouse gases in Canada? Buying carbon credits will help get our Kyoto commitment to 1990 levels by 2012? Buying credits will make a difference? You mistake my meaning. I mean if they ever get it up and running, buy carbon credits to make yourself some money.

Why did I know you'd have no shred of valid discussion to contribute on the matter?

Obviously, you cannot be refering to me, because when you and I discussed the act of war question of blockades, YOUR OWN SOURCES showed that blockades were not rated as casus belli at the relevant time. If you don't recall that, I urge you to review the relevant thread, wherein it was abundantly clear. Did I denigrate it? No, I merely failed to laud it. But as you've shown here again and again, in your mind failing to laud Israel equates to anti-semitism. Give it a rest.

Pish Tosh ... Israeli military leaders themselves acknowledged there was no serious danger from their backwards neighbors in 1967. We should play online Risk sometime.

What solution do you propose to cases where one person's conduct costs another person their resources, health, comfort, or opportunities? Do what about it? Beat him up? Do you really think people should be allowed to defame eachother without consequence?

Israel had a much better armed and trained force, attacking with the advantage of surprise. Winning under those conditions was the expectation, not a great triumph.