trex

By the way Charles, I have already reported you to the Forum Administrator, just in case you ban me. So you know I will not go away quietly.

After being bullied by Charles Anthony during a thread I started called, "Cyber-Bullying", the thread was suddenly deleted. Evidently it exposed him as a rude and condescending bully himself. Since no explanantion was given to me, that could be the only reason the thread, which this forum really needs to talk about was deleted. Or do you have another explanation. Any comments Charles? That are not rude, please. EDIT: This was the Opening Post of a redundant thread entitled: "Cyber-Bullying- deleted" It and all of its posts have been merged into this previous thread.

His condescending reply is in itself cyber-bullying. This attitude is a reflection of the tone and style of many posters here in thses forums. The implication is, that I'm too dumb to understand something simple. It's difficult to respond to comments like this, without becoming offensive yourself. A taunting comment. None of this was provoked by me, I assure you. Hey Charles, if the problem is that I didn't add my own comment at the end (no matter how banal), then why was the material removed? It was not a direct copy. And please explain why this warrants a threat for banning, when far worse transgression go on un-punished. I hope you can reply without being too condescending this time?

I did not copy the entire article, I removed whole paragraphs of some sections, and a few sentences here and there. If you compare with the link you will see this. I fail to see why you need to threaten with banning me over this, if I am not welcome here let me know. The intent of the article was to try and help this forum with its problem, that of users being highly insulting to others. I would appreciate a reply from you regarding this. ---- This is a PM I received and my reply. Certainly this response to me is unfair. Since coming here for a second try at this forum I have been attacked and insulted in some threads, which I reported, received no response back from admin and the offending posts still remain. Although I've tried to contribute to this forum in a positive way, without flaming, it appears I am not welcomed by the admins and given threats like this, for relatively minor infractions. It was not a copied post, several paragrpahs and sentences were omitted and yet it was removed, wothout even a chance from me. Guess I cannot do much good around here.

"Jerks of the Web" re-copied article DELETED by moderator http://tech.msn.com/news/articlepcw.aspx?c...1895>1=40000

Some people come to forums with the sole purpose of being antagonists. You can tell who they are because they consistently use rudeness, condescending and veiled insults. That's how they get their "jollies". I don't know why... there is a need to "prove" things, in a sense like winning points... this is "winning" somehow, for some people. Some will eventually grow out of it, the young ones might. The older ones are what they are. If any of you come here to score some kind of "victory", well, I pity you. I do not come here for that

??? Waiting for what?

Margrace please, don't bruise his sensitive ego. The poor man...

yes we know you are a big man. You can give it a rest now.

I wouldn't know, have never read it.

Or maybe they just want to have a useless argument. I don't come here for that, but to exchange ideas with other people who have some.

A high percentage of convicts are not in jail for violent crimes. Mandatory minimums means the judge can't decide what the sentence should be even if in the particular case, it would be worse for society if the offender was put in jail. For example if the offender was a person who otherwise made positive contributions to society, a volunteer, charity worker or someone whom people need, parent, etc. Some fine people, distinguished physicists and doctors, are drug addicted to opiates. But their work is not impaired by a private problem they have, addiction. If they are arrested for it, under mandatory minimums they must go to jail, carte blanche. Could be the greatest person in the world in every other way. Can someone explain Why they should go to jail, in any case? Second the privatized prison industry commands billions of dollars, and jobs in support industries around it. There is a possible conflict of interest when it is a "growth" industry, just as shareholders demand increasing growth in any business, to make profit.

I bet your grandma would know what to do if the power went out, how to survive. But not you, and not the millions of dumbfounded dipshits who would die if there was a collapse of technology, like if the trucks stopped delivering frozen pizzas to your grocer. So maybe you need to rethink who is more superior, and why. And yes, we have more luxuries than ever before. We also have more pollution, more loss of species every day, more loss of green habitat... than ever before. So maybe there is something to be learned about being a conservative, taking only what you need and leaving some for someone else. Real conservatives would agree. Pseudo-conservatives who are actually corporatists in disguise will have a problem with it

Thanks buffycat, guyser and others for the thumbs up. The rest of you, stay calm. No one's threatening to take your toys away...

Indeed. You don't have to become better if you really don't want to. But you may go the way of the dinosaur

"Anti-consumerism refers to the socio-political movement against consumerism. Consumerism is a term used to describe the effects of the market economy on the individual. "The consumer" has become a derogatory term within sales companies and debt-management consultants, connoting the mindless purchasing and disposing of any product delivered through the market. Concern over the treatment of consumers has spawned substantial activism, and the incorporation of consumer education into school curricula. "Anti-consumerist activism draws parallels with environmental activism, anti-globalization, and animal-rights activism in its condemnation of modern organizations such as the McDonald's Corporation. "Opposition to economic materialism comes primarily from two sources: religion and social activism. Some religions assert materialism interferes with connection between the individual and the divine, or that it is inherently an immoral lifestyle. Some notable individuals, such as Francis of Assisi, Ammon Hennacy, and Mohandas Gandhi claimed spiritual inspiration led them to a simple lifestyle. Social activists believe materialism is connected to war, crime, and general social malaise. Fundamentally, their concern is that materialism is unable to offer a raison d'être for human existence." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-consumerism --- It makes sense. It is what we all can do, as individuals, to fight the big money corporations. Fight peacefully, by simply not buying any more of their shit. Like Ghandis idea, when he confronted the powerful British Empire: non-violent non-cooperation. It's a simple way to defeat them, if many people learn about it and practice it. And it will help save the Earth from exploitation and abuses of the greedy rich. This is now sweeping the United States, the real reason why the economy is collapsing- people are simply no longer buying things. I am sick of buying their shit, for every social occasion now they spread materilaist propaganda on the tv commercials, whether it be x-mas, easter, valentines, mothers day, fathers day. Etc. Find ways to make things yourself. Make food from the basic ingredients, not prepared frozen food or canned food. Learn how to fix things, not throw away. Loan books from libraries, borrow videos. Even, make clothes... a great way to spend time with the family and learn. Stop buying.

Canada is not better than the United States, and we are about to implement "Mandatory Minimums" just as they have, which give judges very little room for discretion about the particulars of the case. So, it's off to jail you go in these cases. Thats why there are so many more in prison now than before. Many more, than is so-called dictatorships which are "un-free". Hence the irony Me, I believe there are other ways to deal with those who break the law, than always putting them in jail. Of course it depends on the crime, but jail should only be for those who can no longer be trusted to behave in society, who are a threat to us. Not, for purely punitive measures where no threat to society exists. Let alone the stigma of having done time at some point in the past, which really equates to a life sentence

1 in 100 Americans behind bars, report finds Prison spending ballooned from $11 billion to $49 billion in 2 decades Thurs., Feb. 28, 2008 NEW YORK - For the first time in U.S. history, more than one of every 100 adults is in jail or prison, according to a new report documenting America’s rank as the world’s No. 1 incarcerator. It urges states to curtail corrections spending by placing fewer low-risk offenders behind bars. Using state-by-state data, the report says 2,319,258 Americans were in jail or prison at the start of 2008 — one out of every 99.1 adults. Whether per capita or in raw numbers, it’s more than any other nation. The report, released Thursday by the Pew Center on the States, said the 50 states spent more than $49 billion on corrections last year, up from less than $11 billion 20 years earlier. The rate of increase for prison costs was six times greater than for higher education spending, the report said. According to the report, the inmate population increased last year in 36 states and the federal prison system. The largest percentage increase — 12 percent — was in Kentucky, where Gov. Steve Beshear highlighted the cost of corrections in his budget speech last month. He noted that the state’s crime rate had increased only about 3 percent in the past 30 years, while the state’s inmate population has increased by 600 percent. Four states — Vermont, Michigan, Oregon and Connecticut — now spend more on corrections than they do on higher education, the report said. “These sad facts reflect a very distorted set of national priorities,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, referring to the full report. “Perhaps, if we adequately invested in our children and in education, kids who now grow up to be criminals could become productive workers and taxpayers.” “For some groups, the incarceration numbers are especially startling,” the report said. “While one in 30 men between the ages of 20 and 34 is behind bars, for black males in that age group the figure is one in nine.” The racial disparity for women also is stark. One of every 355 white women aged 35 to 39 is behind bars, compared with one of every 100 black women in that age group. The nationwide figures, as of Jan. 1, include 1,596,127 people in state and federal prisons and 723,131 in local jails. That’s out of almost 230 million American adults. The report said the United States incarcerates more people than any other nation, far ahead of more populous China with 1.5 million people behind bars. It said the U.S. also is the leader in inmates per capita (750 per 100,000 people), ahead of Russia (628 per 100,000) and other former Soviet bloc nations which round out the Top 10. The U.S. also is among the world leaders in capital punishment. According to Amnesty International, its 53 executions in 2006 were exceeded only by China, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq and Sudan. ---- - THESE FIGURES DO NOT EVEN INCLUDE THOSE OUT ON PAROLE OR WHO FINISHED THEIR SENTENCE BUT CARRY A CRIMINAL RECORD. - COMING SOON TO A COUNTRY NEAR YOU!!

If the family wanted a private funeral that is certainly their right. But a little sympathy for her friends who are also mourners, would be in order. After all, when it is your friend who has died, it hurts just as much as a loved one, and people need a way to get over their grief. I can't blame the family for changing it though, because of the intense media scrutiny alone. I think this murder case is being handled the way it should be, under Canadian law. There is no hint of amnesty by sharia law being granted so far. All islamophobes can rest assured, their WASP heritage remains pure and unsullied.

That's right, because Harper wants to allow Everybody to have guns. He even wants little kids should be allowed to own guns. Next thing you know this whole place'll be like in 'Merika, where there's some places that you HAVE to wear a gun, or else you're not even allowed in.

Yes and we know that the Mackays were involved somehow. When Karl Heinz Schreiber asked Brian Mulroney to speak to Stephen Harper for him on his behalf, this idea was suggested to Schreiber by Peter Mackays father. How did Mackay's Dad know about the upcoming meeting between Harper and Mulroney? Did Peter tell him? And if so, why...

Another thing came to light is that Mr. Mulroney never gave Mr. Schreiber a receipt for the cash. You'd think if it was all on the level, he would have given Mr. Schreiber a receipt. In Schreibers testimony, he says he gave him the money and thought he would get a receipt from Mr. Mulroney, but he never did. Has Brian Mulroney refuted this claim? Because, I would expect a receipt or some form of paperwork to exchange hands on any above-the-board business transactions. That is normal for all standard business procedures.

Boy, you right-wingers are just dieing and hoping for anything out there, aren't you. You know what the enquiry means anyway, regardless of any and all outcomes... Harper will be blasted from the Hill in the next Federal Election! The Canadian people have spoken. We have had enough. Poom! And Next goes Peter Mackay... Poom! And a few more will be added on that list, to be sure. Oh Yeah Bring Em On!