Figleaf

What did he tell them? This was not included in the report. He wasn't beaten because he was co-ooerating. But this is far beyond anything you have read up on so that's why I'm not talking about it anymore. Riiiight. It's usually smart to clam up when it starts getting obvious that you're talking sh1t. Blahblahblah.

You mean the one where the operator knowingly falsified or doctored his reports, and the same guy when faced with a problem decided not to tell anyone? Walkerton could have been avoided simply , the moron running the system should have been honest. The Commissioners report dealt with the entire Ministry, not the moronic hadnlings of Stan Whathisname and his brother. Yes, the one that says Harris dismantled the provincial lab process that would have caught the town water system's problem.

What did he tell them?

What exactly is an "ugly fatty"? Pretty subjective, but obviously you are making a value judgment on the worth of an individual based on their outward appearance. Actually, to be accurate, he was making a judgement about the worth of an individual as a magazine model based on their outward appearance. It's not 'challenging', its absurd. Beauty, whether the normal outward appearance type, or the 'internal' beauty notion, is all about fitting desired molds. You don't say vindictive, self-centred, dark-hearted bullies are beautiful inside, and you don't say a foul-smelling, toothless, shamling wreck with hair falling out is outwardly beautiful.

Indeed! Ad nauseam.

Would you really like to know?

Come on. Do you expect the Premier to go down into Walkerton and do a civil servant's job??? No, I expect him to leave procedures intact that backstop one civil servant with another in important things like water quality. Harris dismantled the provincial lab system that would have caught the town water system's problem. You should read the commissioners report instead of relying on conjecture.

It's the same argument anyone uses when they are examining assumptions -- Holocaust deniers, theologians, scientists, lawyers, Talmudic scholars, journalists, you name it.

So is it OK for K to use the knife against the riding crop or not?

ROTFLMAO Bush will be reviled through the centuries of America's sad slow decline.

l

Please don't be facile. I don't know why exactly you guys don't want to believe the truth. Equalization payments are funded from the general federal account, i.e. the taxes collected all across Canada.

Once again someone tries to apologise for terrorist war crimes. Sweet. If you're going to make those kind of accusations, please back it up. In what way am I 'apologizing' for terrorism? You are shifting the onus of responsibilty away from the responsible. What I am actually doing is attempting to parse the implicit assumptions Rue implants in his arguments about where responsibility lies. Unfortunately, you and he both object to such an examination of the assumptions because you are motivated by an emotional interest in the monolithic solidity of his arguments. (Hence your frequent malicious imputations of anti-semitism.)

Once again someone tries to apologise for terrorist war crimes. Sweet. If you're going to make those kind of accusations, please back it up. In what way am I 'apologizing' for terrorism? The law is clear. No one is obliged to stop defending their lives becasue some terrorist scum have no respect for their own people's lives. Yes, that's true, isn't it. ? ?

Determined heroic friends of America.

It would be better to avoid imprecise phraseology though. It's not the collecting that's done on the basis of provincial wealth, its the SPENDING. 'Alberta' and 'Ontario' don't fund equalization. Equalization is funded by all Canadian taxpayers. Pay ins - pay outs = your contribution. Alberta and Ontario contriubte the whole deal. 'Alberta' and 'Ontario' don't fund equalization. Equalization is funded by all Canadian taxpayers.

wisdom

If they didn't, they're throwing their money away. Not at all, they're trying to sell pimple cream, not the very concept of clear skin. Of what? They are representative of what gets attention and sells soap. 1-Are they? 2-If they are, it might be because their values are changing. (For which, I suppose, you want to blame 'the media'.)

And what expertise makes you so sure it's impossible? The CPP is adequately funded. Sort of like people say about the provincial government of Alberta, except less of course. But really, if people keep voting the same way in fair elections, who is to say they're not right? Source? And when does the anti-Christ show up, in this scenario? Yeah, Belinda will lead them there playing a golden flute.

I don't know how you can make that statement and consider yourself politically savy. Yeah, but there's likely a whole lot of other things you don't know as well.

Put them at risk of what? Nothing Figleaf. You are right. There was no risk of anything. When you place civilians in the line of fire there is no risk. Wait, wait -- You're saying that someone is putting civilians in danger from guns and explosions. So I want you to state who is firing the guns and explosions. O.k. now that you have shared with us you are having cognitive processing issues, how do I explain it Figleaf ... Explain the unexplainable? No, I certainly don't expect you to manage that. Yes. I fail to see what the point of your bizarre recitation is. Let's try to get back to the point ... You said guerilla fighters were putting civilians in harms way by being among them. I want you to state what is the source of that harm the the guerillas are bringing down upon them. Who's dropping the bombs and firing the missiles? I would attempt to take cover, but my firearms skills are not such that I could be sure of not killing the woman, so obviously I should not shoot back. Let's talk about the real world, not any fantasies you want to draw me into. In the real world, the 'someone' doing the shooting in your example has had his land occupied or his country invaded. The side 'shooting back' actually shot first a round back. Israel should try making peace.

Hang on: there's another one coming: Hey, you found a thesaurus! Zing! You sure get fractious when your arguments break down, don't you? Because it puts the cart before the horse. Your theory presumes the reverse of logical causation based on the known motivations of the agents. To whit, the 'media' wants to get your attention, or sell you something. Neither of those motivations is served by attempting a massive social engineering project of mutating the natural tastes of mankind. It is simply much cheaper, less risky, and more effective just to reflect the culture rather than change it. And speaking of, I'd like to understand what mechanism you think is actually doing this alleged change. I.e. demonstrate that media imagery actually affects what the bulk of people consider attractive. Well for one thing, as I've made clear before, the "standard" portrayed by the media represents 0.01 per cent of the population, You may have said that, but you haven't made it clear. I see beautiful young women all over, all the time. They're wonderful, but they are not as rare as hen's teeth. It's a standard, not an average. Recalling your earlier post, it seems to me that the only standard that you're really suggesting has changed is the idealized BMI. (At least that's what your images suggested to me.) I don't know of anyone alleging that healthy hair, teeth and skin are new standards, or that a preference for clear features or soft features is a firm or persistent standard. So, regarding BMI, your Manet image tells us nothing, because we cannot presume Manet's motive was to capture/create and promulgate any particular standard of beauty. Maybe he was striving to capture the woman he actually saw. As between Munroe and Moss, it gets pretty anecdotal, don't you think? I mean Moss is certainly not the big star Munroe was, so the comparison is not very compelling. I'm saying they don't. Let me rephrase, then: you're saying media depictions of beauty have no effect on social perceptions of beauty. IOW, the media does not influence us: the process only works the other way, with the media acting as a mirror. Correct? Close, but not exactly. The media does indeed indoctrinate, but it indoctrinates with whatever content the culture supplies. Ah yes: the old "rational actors" myth. Again, not exactly. Rational or not, it's up to people's choices. And not the concept of what constitutes "fat"? As I understand it there is a range of BMI on which there is broad scientific agreement as the best for general health. I will bet you 10 to 1 that the average weight of 80% of successful strippers/burlesque performers falls within that range, and has for generations.

And I would respons by saying your understanding of the media is pretty shallow and naive. Okay, an ad hominem. Just because it is an Ad H. doesn't mean it isn't true. If anything, you done nothing to show you know what you'ree talking about. Ad hominem in tandem. That could be the motto of your club.

Can you offer any tangible proof of that suspicion? Are you asking for proof of what is spent on cosmetic advertising each year? No, sorry ... I'm asking for proof that all their billions actually set any standards.

[is a disaster