theloniusfleabag

If Jesus comes out of his hole and sees his shadow, does that mean we have 6 more weeks of winter or 4 more weeks of lent? I always get these things mixed up...Off to look up some recipes for rabbit. Cheers and Happy Easter.

Dear Charles Anthony, Surely you jest. You become an enigma, as I have said of August1991. Consumption is the driving mantra of free-enterprise. It's raison d'etre, for now, until we choose a new reason. Or, until a new reasoon is forced upon us. The analogy of the hole-digging is not entirely accurate. Your hole has no purpose. The purpose of the hole in the real world is to generate profit. An example of freedom. Do you now wish to say that this purpose is not almighty?

Dear bush_cheney2004, Technically, yes, but it is in ''Moral & Religious Issues", which should mean that arguments here transcend borders. I have to agree. Often 'predation' means the stronger preys upon the weaker, and most often some people assume this means people such as I are labeling an entire gender as 'the weaker sex'. It would likely not read so harshly if someone said "Of the two, the stronger preyed upon the weaker in this case." The problem is, people who are quick to cry 'sexism' are reluctant to ever use a sentence like that. As to 'America bashing', you are right, it is quite prevalent, and I must admit that I have engaged in it, here and often. I really don't know what BubberMiley is talking about, I do it all the time. Mind you, no one reads my posts, so it may well have been overlooked.

Dear geoffrey, Thanks for the encouragement. guyser and leonardcohen, I understand that not everyone is in support of the group, but support for us has been about 95% positive, from what we have seen. Even amongst the 'homeless' around the drop-in centre. Several have told us that they are glad to see us, and that even they don't feel safe, especially at night. However, some few people have given us the finger, and one gentleman commented, "Go back to America, you Nazi swine". The other night we broke up a fight along the bike path downtown, and asked the two guys to go their seperate ways with no one getting hurt. A little while later we helped carry an extremely intoxicated man into the Drop-in Centre for his own safety (two guys were already making their way there with him, and we asked if we could help). The staff at the centre were very friendly and helpful, and seemed genuinely pleased to see us. I think that so far, the most common misconception is that we are out to 'bash heads', and that we are 'wanna-be cops' trying to make arrests. Not so, at least for our group. One of our group was formerly in Toronto for years, and he told us (and the CPS, with whom we have recently had a very positive meeting) that in all the years they were in TO, they never made one arrest. We don't want to be cops, we all have full-time jobs and none of us really envy the police, they have one of the toughest and thankless jobs around. We have had some training in self-defence, and also in the law, and realize that physical force is only to be used in extremely rare circumstances. Even then only the 'barest minimum required' can be used. Basically, we just want to be good citizens who want to improve our community, and are not afraid to stand up to wrong-doing. Our motto is 'Dare to Care'. What we do (and hope to do) -be a visual deterrent to crime -be extra 'eyes and ears' for the police -offer help when it is needed -be positive role-models, especially for youth Our first couple of patrols has seen us spending more time picking up needles and crack-pipes (to get them off the sidewalks so kids don't get curious) than anything else, so if that is all we ever did, I would say it has been a positve thing.

I thought I would dredge up this old thread since my wife and I have recently completed training (though it will be ongoing) and joined the Guardian Angels. The first official patrol was last night in Calgary. The response was overwhelmingly positive, even amongst the 'street-people'. Many of them don't even feel safe. Soooo interesting, and a real eye-opener. If anyone has any questions about the group, please feel free to ask.

I have heard from some buddies in the petro-chemical field that plastic bags are much more 'environmentally friendly' than paper....they are easier to recycle (they get melted down and the components are easier to manage), and they take about 10% of the space vs. paper in landfills... As to packaging, I must concur with Charles Anthony, the consumer ultimately decides direction. However, I believe that there should be some sort of recoverable 'deposit' for all packaging, encouraging the consumer to recycle and recover that cost. I believe I saw a documentary on waste management in the UK years ago (as riveting as that sounds) where all household waste was taken to sorting stations before going to landfills. The municipalities reduced the volume going to the landfill by 90% by filtering out recyclables and organics, and actually turned a profit on the solids they sold to recycling plants. There is nothing like that here because we don't have the land crunch and it remains cheaper to just 'dispose'.

Dear ScottSA, The comparison to the Munich agreement would be more akin to the UN. Tribunals at The Hague at least have a chance for trial, conviction and incarceration.

Ayn Rand makes me wretch. Besides, the original quote is 'the love of money is the root of all evil'. Meaning greed, not the actual scrip itself.

While media bans and gag orders may have certain times and places where they are needed, (especially in cases where the perpetrator has yet to be caught) shouldn't truth and freedom of information be of the highest order? For example, I read a few articles about a recent case where a 'gag order' was issued... http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/04/29/...ice-050429.html Now we must ask, do gag orders serve the public interest, or simply the interest of those involved? Should anyone really hold the sweeping powers of censorship over all media? Is that power 'abusing the privilege' when they themselves are involved in any manner?(to the moderator) Please review and let me know if this post is in any way in violation of this order.

I think we should be able to have threads on world issues unpolluted by loonies and their weird assed conspiracy theories. I couldn't agree more. Sadly though, some troll here once said, "Hey, it's the internet...get used to it". That may be a 'feel good' solution, but it would be one unlikely to bring the return of the kidnap victims. It is extortion, pure and simple, for Iran stated that they want 'political consessions' in return for the sailors. "Iva-gone-mad" (or however the Iranian leader's name is pronounced) should be given a choice of either returning the sailors with an apology, of facing arrest and prosecution (at The Hague, preferably). I think 'piracy on the high seas' still is a hanging offence most everywhere.

Dear kimmy, Huzzah and Amen. Excellent post. To address the 'OP', I suppose, one must question whether CNN (and by extension, all media) serves to enhance or enable said 'poison', or provide a bulwark against it. The profit motive will dictate the former.

Of the two posters that make the most brutally honest sense, I must tip my hat to both bush_cheney2004 and to Black Dog (though they lie on opposite ends of the spectrum). In some cases, one might consider that 'appeasement' is like being in a cage with a horny gorilla...he/she wants to f#@k your lights out...but you might be able to stave off the 'unacceptable' (unless you have that particular bent- of either enjoying it or desiring a fight to the death) by offering it a banana (quite aside from the fact chimps and new-world monkeys more prefer bananas). If your captive gorilla (or third world country) is more profitable alive than dead (at your zoo, for example, or even in one of your t-shirt factories), then offering the banana course seems the most sensible.

Dear Charles Anthony, Repeat after me: My electricity comes from the flooding of land. Here in Alberta, most electricity comes from the burning of coal. A lot in the east comes from the flooding of land, but only because it is the cheapest way to do it. I suppose one could ask 'what is the 'best way', but there are two different definitions of 'best'. The first one would be 'the most efficient with the least environmental impact', and the other 'best' is 'the most profitable'. It is possible, but history shows that massive change results in massive death. I suppose that is why many people in the area were opposed to the Great Whale Project. They could have been told to stay put, for it is possible that, over time, you may develop gills!

Dear Black Dog, In some ways, the Munich agreement had changed the term 'appeasement' to one meaning 'something for nothing', or 'something for dropping a threat'. In this regard, it was more like giving a robber your wallet rather than fighting for it. Don't forget another quote of Churchill's after the Munich agreement..."England had been given a choice between war and shame. She has chosen shame, and will get war".

Even if that form of expression is being a prolific internet troll? Correct, it's is the Moderator's right. I hope he shall exercise that right at his earliest convenience.

Dear figleaf, Indeed I did. After repeated transgressions, I would think 'banning' would be appropriate.

Again with the plagiarism... from...http://www.web-books.com/Classics/Nonficti...win_ManC8P4.htm

You have been called out as a plaigiarist, the proof has been provided. To claim that you haven't seen the websites that you have been shown to have been quoting verbatim is simply lying. I shall report this thread as well... Try a new identity...

Dear Slavik44, Excellent post, very informative. You obviously have some background that didn't come from 'an accredited Bible College'. Indeed it is merely a mechanism, it is the 'how', to the 'Why'...(which is, 'to be')Evolution is merely striving 'to be, more efficiently'. Bugs me to no end to hear the words 'random mutation' (like being born with three eyes) as the basis for refutation of evolution. In almost every species, 'radical random mutations' are killed off by their own kind, let alone the 'forces of nature'. Mostly it is simply 'Alpha' traits that get passed, billions of times. Other than that, niches (which has it's 'possibility quotient' renewed regularly by changing environments) offer the greatest impetus for change (or not, in some cases).Troll, I somehow doubt this is true...but a devout religious person wouldn't lie, would they...?

Dear kimmy, Well done. Does this quote look familiar? It is from... http://www.evidencesofcreation.com/tellme09.htm And this bit... fromhttp://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:LxUaeM...clnk&cd=1&gl=ca (don't know if this link will work, but you get the idea. ) Plaigiarism is against forum rules.

Dear August1991, Sure, I did't really have time to explain too much. Merely an object, with boundaries, (separating it from the infinite surroundings of 'that which does not be') thus giving it the parameters needed for it to qualify as 'existing'. However, that does not make it the sole thing that 'does be'. It may be one of several, or even an infinite amount. If there is infinity, then all things should happen. (for example, what are the odds of you rolling a 1 on a six sided die on the first roll? 0.167... what are the odds of rolling a million 1s on the first roll of a million dice? astronomical...but, what are the chances of rolling a million ones of the first roll of a million dice if you are given an infinite number of chances? 100%) This means, August1991, that all possibilities will come to pass. A singularity may blossom (or explode) into a universe and appear unique to us, but only because we are inside of it. (on a wacky sidenote)... I mean this in the prose sense, (giving inanimate objects or notions human qualities) as rebuttal to your statement... The '+' sign is missing. and this... Name one thing that can be accomplished without this prerequisite.

Dear geoffrey, As I understand it, (in Canada, at least) an individual can only use the minimum required force to defend against a threat, never the maximum. This must be an incredibly grey area of law, because it would be physically impossible to ever prove intent.

Dear August1991, Not exactly, for the universe is merely a 'being', a thing. A 'God' is more than that, since we apply personification to the notion. The 'universe' (as we know it now) may be only a part of 'existence'. 'Being' is the grandest notion. As Melanie points out, Adel is quite full of crap. A good theologian would put forth much more convincing arguments. Black Dog and melanie have thus far slaughtered Adel's first year theology rubbish.

Dear Charles Anthony, I do not believe that a creature with no memory could comprehend the 'not be' bit, nor really even the 'being' bit. Is a radish aware of it's own mortality? Black Dog, You point out the flaw in the 'religious causal argument'. God, or a creator, is a glaring exception to the rule that everything is caused by something else...

Dear geoffrey, It is exactly the same as believing 'God' always existed...Most people can conceptualize eternity in the future, but few seem to be able to apply it to the past. It seems to be universal to accept that something 'always was', but lots of people won't accept 'being always was', so they put an 'a' in front: 'a being always was'.