Peter F

Yes, like I offer you air to breath. The NWP will be available for shipping wether we offer it or not.

I have.

Thats a problem? How so?

I think you are correct. There was no market here but there was competion for a finite resource. Adam Smith has nothing to do with this. But this game involved much more than getting money. The crucial element of this televised game was wich player is going to be the fool? To avoid looking like the fool both players had to steal. If looking like a fool was not of primary importance to a player then they would split. That is really what this game was about: Looking foolish on TV.

You've lost me; Get out of what problem?

1) Public 2-7) no

And what would the man have gained had he chosen to steal? Nothing. He made the right choice. This game isn't really about money, its about being willing to look like a putz. She was unwilling to do that - so she stole. Adam smith? Whats this rat race game got to do with adam smith? Make people trust you so's you can get it all? Was that Mr Smiths point? as for game theory...This is the generalized form of the 'prisoners dilema' with money offered instead of jail time. In a one shot event, such as the linked game, stealing may be a fine option, but over the long term (multiple playing of the game), splitting is the smart option. Prisoners Dilemma

I remember walking into a legion with my tuque on. The ex-NCO's shouted at me to take off my hat!, which I did of course. Now I try to remember to remove my toque on the rare occasions that I enter a Legion. We have been in the medieval world for a long long time. Have never left it.

Ah. You're admiration vanishes. To gain your admiration it was necessary to be fighting the commies. So the reasons he fought no longer have any relevance but the reasons all the other folks who fought alongside him against non-commies do have relevance. Yet, the people my uncle was fighting were fighting so's homosexuals could be tossed into camps and not have gay pride parades. It seems everybody was killing each other so that there'd be no gay pride parades. They were probably killing each other so's there'd be no pay equity either. or perhaps for open internet. Perhaps they weren't fighting for the right to go to the moon. or maybe so's the rat-men of Mexico couldn't work in the USofA or the non-blonde and blue eyed could not be appointed GG....or maybe something - hell, anything else you can think of. The list of reasons they weren't fighting is endless, not to mention meaningless. Soooooo come up with another line of reasoning, preferably one that actually is worthy of a demi-god.

Canadian side. The invasion of Finland was the last straw so he dashed down and signed up. Imagine his dissapointment when bloody Stalin became Uncle Joe on the 23rd of June 1941. But he soldiered in the service of the state fighting folks he thought we should be allied with. Good thing he didn't get killed! Imagine what mess that would have caused for government policy! Being killed means everthing you fought for, or didn't fight for, would have to be chiselled into stone somewhere. God what a mess our country would be in if he had been killed.

And what do you know of what they fought for? So that Aryan's can have thier rightfull place in the Sun? My uncle joined up in 1940 to fight the commies. My other uncle joined up because only cowards and girly-men didn't.

Not necessarily. I would be perfectly pleased that the NDP sign on to support the government of the day in return for some NDP inspired programs. Course that depends on the cost. But, no, I have no problem with "condominium" with other partys in order to get some of what they would not get otherwise. And you are correct. there was and election in 1911 and the next in 1917. I have no idea why that was so. and what, pray, would compel the parties involved to honour the agreement if they felt the agreement was no longer what they thought it was? The could back out at any time they liked. of course they do -yet many do things that induce party leaders to not sign their nomination papers. Quite a regular occurence actually. not at all. Conservatives 143 seats; Liberals 77; BQ 49; NDP 37. You do the math - apparently Harper forgot to. Again, Why do you suppose Harper sought prorogation and not another election?

Neither did I vote for the Leader of the Conservative Party to be PM - Yet there he is! So do please explain how if the Leader of the Liberal Party becomes PM, my democratic rights have misfired somehow, yet another person who I have no desire to be PM is PM and my democratic rights are met? I put it to you that this idea having someone I don't vote for as PM being percieved as trodding on my democratic rights is entirely false. Well, I don't know much about your country's political history, but I am slightly more informed about mine. Electoral politics have never - never been suspended in wartime. But then you do seem to be confused about electoral politics and parliamentary politics. They are two different (albeit related) animals. In parliamentary democracy's, elections are about who a person will vote for and parliamentary politics are about who and how those elected mps decide will form the government. Where are you getting this crap from? Party's can bolt from parliamentary agreements anytime they like and there is nothing holding them to any agreements made (outside of the political hay the spurned party will make of the spurning). Complete Falsehood. Its very simple, jbg, if most of the members of parliament do not support a particular partys policy's, that party will not form the government. The party or lone MP that can muster a voting majority gets to form the government. Elections only come into it once every five years at least. You keep getting the two confused and think they are one and the same; that one depends upon the other. Why do you think Harper asked the GG to prorogue parliamentand not ask for parliament to be desolved? Because Stephen, if not you, knows how parliament works and he knew what deep caca he had got himself into and he knew it was the only way out of said caca.

No, a vote for Jack is a vote for Jack. Gilles gets his own votes and so doe's Micheal and so doe's Stephen. However I understand the concept that a vote for anyone but Stephen is a vote for them all. Personally I find a vote for anyone but Jack is a vote for everyone but Jack.

Honestly? I voted for the NDP candidate in my riding so that he could be one of many NDP candidates and be able to form a government. Should I have voted otherwise? Should I have accepted the anti-democratic mantra "Whats the use?" and voted for the partys whose policys I dont agree with? Solely for the panacea of telling myself that "my vote wasnt wasted"? Get real. I voted NDP hoping that maybe, just maybe, this time, people would come to thier senses and also cast votes for the NDP also. What other reason could there possibly be to vote otherwise? I really want an NDP government so I should vote Liberal? Thats insane. gets tossed during wartime? I think not. You seem to be under the impression that there is some sort of morality to the system. There isn't, and in a democracy there can't be. To be otherwise is to not be a democracy. Thus parliamentary democracy evolved. The elected mp's get to haggle amongst themselves making all sorts of backroom deals etc. How the hell do you think Harpers government has managed to stay in power? They make deals! The Harper government is, in fact, a despised - disloyal Coalation government. That is what a minority government is.

That is only one remedy. And even the election remedy is to allow an opportunity for change of MP's so's they can come up with a government that has a support of the majority of the members. If any party - even a minority party - hell even 1 person - can drum up the support of a majority of mps then guess what? they get to form the government! See Churchill/Chamberlain ala 1940.

--Oleg A great line. I've never heard that phrase before. Is it an Oleg original? MLW aghan war unwinnable thread post 135

Oh Goody! We are slowly getting to a definition that the Americans approve!

No wonder what? Your question was "What is an (English) Canadian?" I answered your question. Perhaps If we had had a class on the subject I could have provided the correct response that you are looking for. But, since no class was held, I really don't think you have any call taking on the role of Teacher and the rest of us your students.

No, August 1991, your question was: " What is Canada, in English?". I gave you a definition of Canada that I found reasonable and I provided that definition in English.

A person whose mother tongue is English who is also a Canadian citizen all of the above and Saskatchewan and Manitoba and Vancouver and British Columbia and Iqualuit etc etc and on and on According to Wikipedia (if one can trust wikipedia): Canada (IPA: /ˈkænədə/) is a country occupying most of northern North America, extending from the Atlantic Ocean in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the west and northward into the Arctic Ocean. Wikipedia entry on Canada

So its fair, then, that I don't think poorly of Iranians.

Are the acts of an individual the acts of a nation? Shall I think poorly of Canadians because of one Canadians actions? What individual actions of an Iranian necessitate that I think poorly of Iranians?

It was settled in 1759. Why do you keep referring to that year as if something wasn't settled?

Shouldn't I? I need reason to think poorly of folks but I need no reason to think well of them. A personal quirk of mine...