AngusThermopyle

Thats an easy one Oleg, I did just that a couple of posts above yours. Actually its not one, its all six thousand plus who work in the Alliston Honda plant who are non unionized. Unfortunatelly I don't know all their names so I can't name them for you.

You know Kengs, if your posts did not promote hatred and intolerance you'd be funny. But they do and you're not. The only good thing is that you are in a very small minority when it comes to this issue and can easily be ignored as a hypocrite. Therefore your opinion is not relevant as you can only support it by using hypocrasy and intolerance based on an absurd old book. Not to mention making assumptions and other things up that you could not possibly know about . Yet you accuse others of stupidity while parading such absurd behaviour proudly in front of everyone. You still haven't answered how believing people should be free to live their lives free of issues caused by nutbars would indicate personal "issues". You tried but considering you only offered an opinion that you attempted to back up by making unfounded assumptions your answer is worthless. As that is the case the question still remains unanswered. Can you try to answer the question now? That is minus all the stuff you make up to try to support your non existant argument.

Yikes! Why be so mean to her. Actually I can't say anything. My ex and her daughter named mine Duchess, not my first choice, believe me. She's a fawn, brindles are nice but I would'nt have Duchess any other way. Yeah, they should get a good sized dog, Old English Sheepdogs make excellent pets for families with kids. I agree about the little dog thing, leash lint and good for nothing much.

Actually no, at least not at Honda. I used to work there in the Alliston plant. I don't know about Toyota but I suspect that they are non unionized either. The Japanese are'nt all that fond of unions.

Wow! You really are way out there on this one, not that thats unusual. So, in your mind, I have bought into some evil secret agenda because I believe people should have the right to choose who they wish to be with without interference from others? Why do you think for even a second that what these people do in their private lives is any of your business at all? Then, after showing everyone just how invalid your arguement is you compound the error by making some huge assumptions with no basis in reality at all. No one has "forced" me to accept anything. Just because I'm not some nut condemning people on the basis of an old story book and some imaginary magical character who tells us who to hate and what to believe, you assume I've been "forced". Then you further assume I believe in letting people live as they wish because of some "issues" that you seem to have pulled out of thin air. Really, you should not talk about others having "issues" when everything you post would appear to indicate some pretty major issues in your life. So come on. Explain how believing other peoples personal lives are none of my or your business indicates "issues". Then you can explain how believing you have the right to pass judgement and condemn others for purely personal decisions that are none of your business and do not affect you in any way at all does not indicate "issues". Now, would you care to post any more irrational and invalid thoughts on this subject? Maybe make some more stuff up to amuse us?

Actually I will admit to a mistake here. My mistake was the belief that you were talking about our Chinooks. I wonder how I could possibly have thought that? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the thread is about Canadian Chinooks, not other countries Chinooks. Now if you wish to discuss what other countries do with various weapons platforms then feel free to do so, I'm more than happy to participate as this is an area of great interest to me. So let me make this perfectly clear to you our Chinooks will not be front line combat, they will be support and as such will not kill anyone, unless they crash. I highly highly doubt you will see mini guns on them either, we won't go to the expense of supporting a weapon system in very limited numbers that will probably never be used. At best you'll see them with a couple of LMG's or MMG's, purely for defense, not offense. Now, is my point a little more clear or would you now like to tell us about what other countries do with what they buy, the relevance to our situation of course being zero.

Actually you should look over the thread again. What I disagree with is eyeballs opinion that these craft will be used to kill people. Never once did I say you couldn't mount weapons on them. In fact I pointed out that you can mount weapons on just about anything. In this context what can be done with them is irrelevant, the relevant point lies in what will be done with them. So to reiterate once more, these helo's will not be used to kill people. But thanks for the gratuitous insult, after reading your posts its pretty much the reaction I expect.

Really! thats the first time I've heard that. Can you give us a cite to back that up? The reality in Canada is that our animal protection laws are a joke with no significant consequences leveled against animal abusers. It would appear to be quite the opposite of what you state. I'd just like to add that I think its great he's considering a shelter dog. When I look for a dog I always go to the shelters. There are lots of great dogs waiting for homes but they're mostly overlooked because people want the cute little puppy. In fact my girl was a shelter dog and she turned out to be the nicest most loving dog I've ever owned, and she's a Pit Bull.

Damn thats steep! You should have done it yourself, a fuel pump is easy to replace, you just have to drop the tank (at least in the vast majority of vehicles). That way it would have cost you about 50 to 100 bucks instead. Well, depending on what you drive.

Basil was cruel and rude but funny as hell, Cleese really is a comic genius. For instance the way he refers to Sybil, his wife. Or when he suggests her laugh sounds "like someone machine gunning a seal". I wouldn't mind watching the series again, its been years since I've seen it. Too bad they only made twelve episodes. One thing I didn't know was the antics of the paperboy. When the show began the hotel sign would always be rearanged (my favourite was Flowery Twats) it turns out that it was the paperboy who was doing this. All in all a brilliant show, in fact it was voted as the number one British comedy show, no small feat at all.

Big time. Basil has to be one of the best characters ever shown on TV. I love the one where the health inspector shows up and Basil frantically tries to conceal the fact that theres a rat in the hotel. Not to mention Manuel, the meak foil for Basils temper.

Actually when I read the thread title I thought it was going to be about some wonderfull new jacking system. We used a unified jacking system on the last building we moved. Its really neat, 16 big jacks operating in unison and controlled by micro processors. As for this system I have no idea. Personally I use Skype once in a while and have no complaints, but I don't use it very often.

You are convieniently overlooking a couple of other words, those are "will not" as in these will not be used in a direct combat role. As has been pointed out already you can mount some form of weapon on just about anything so in effect they can play a combat role, that however does not indicate that they will. For example. there was a period of time when they placed armed men on some of the tankers going through the straits. Would this by your yardstick mean they were no longer tankers but warships instead?

Well that explains why I didn't know it, I'm not an SNL viewer, never have been. I'm more of a Monty Python fan myself. Who could ever forget the "been shopping" skit, or "confuse a cat". Oh yes, lets not forget the "I have a theory" skit, you know the "my theory is that Dinosaurs are skinny at one end, fat in the middle and skinny at the other end" bit.

Actually that makes a lot of sense, I didn't really give it too much thought. The article didn't mention any demographics as I recall just stated overall profits.

Really, personally I think its a big fat waste of money. Use some of the money to expand the McMicheal gallery in Klienberg instead, I'm sure that more people would want to view the works of the group of seven rather than portraits of obscure Canadians who may or may not have had lasting significance on Canada. Wouldn't this thread have been more appropriate for the Arts and Culture section of the forums?

I think I've just found the case I'll use for my next gaming rig that I'm going to build. This is really cool, no pun intended. the oinly problem I can see with it is the fact that its suited to sitting on a desk as opposed to the floor, not a big problem really. Also HSF selection will probably be quite critical due to space requirements. Check it out, its really different and cool. Antec Skeleton

The key word in all this is "can", not will be or could be. The simple fact is that you can mount an MMG on a pickup truck and use it agressively, we don't but you "can" if you want. As for C 130 gunships. Have you ever seen one? the only thing these planes have in common with a C 130 is their shape and the amount of engines they have. The gunship is a highly specialized aircraft extensively modified to act as a weapon support platform, given that the vast majority of missions it flies are night missions it sports a host of sensors that other planes of its class do not have. In short, you can use just about anything as a weapons platform. Hell, we mounted C 9's on bungee cords in our Sea Kings over in Somalia but not for one moment did anyone consider these to be combat aircraft. Just because it can be done does not mean Canada will do it, in this case we will not. These aircraft will be strictly support, no direct combat role at all. If we mount weapons on them they'll be strictly for defensive purposes, our boys will not be swooping around blazing away as they hunt down the Taliban in these machines. Do you really think we'd risk losing these shiny new helo's to some cheap assed RPG fire right after we've gotten them? Not to mention the fact that Chinooks would be a horrible combat aircraft, slow and cumbersome, they'd be the easiest target on the battlefield.

They are in the broadest sense of the word war machines. These helo's will not be making attack runs, they wont be dropping bombs, they won't be used for area denial. They'll be used to ferry men and equipment, deliver supplies and evac the wounded, they are a support role machine. Using your criteria we could also claim the boots the guys wear are also part of a war machine. The case could be made but it would be as flimsy as a wet tissue paper in a strong wind.

Well obviously, Quebec will have its own distinct space union with any who are interested in joining it, so long as they are French or the inter galactic equivalent. Its predicted that it will be a union of one.

Well said, spot on and undeniable. In Kengs post we see the classic reaction of the intolerant. Why shouldn't a consenting couple be together, how does it harm you in the least way at all Kengs? As for deviance, well after spouting that fundamentalist style diatribe about evil Homosexuals I would suggest you be more carefull about where and when you use the deviant word, many would say that the thought process involved in such a rant could indicate deviance. Now as for all the nonesense about being fooled by the gay lifestyle, how absolutely wrong you are. I haven't been fooled or brainwashed or any of the other crap you want to believe. I just happen to know that gay people are much like the rest of us, some are good, some are bad, and quite frankly what they do together is none of my business, nor yours either. What is strange is your venomous reaction to gay people, one could very easily believe that its a result of conflicting feelings and uncertainty. Pure garbage, nothing more. Slaughtering innocents is evil, oppressing and controlling people is evil. Two consenting loving adults being together is not evil. Wanting to live your life as you see fit is not evil. In fact if we use your rather tenuous measure of evil then your very words would appear to indicate an evil intent. Given that, what would you propose we do about the "evil" gay people? Stick em all in a camp? Ship em off to some deserted island? Reprogram and condition them for their own good? What are your thoughts on this matter?

Did you really say that? Are you serious, or even sane? Listen bud, I love women, very much, but I'd never say something so stupid as that, no matter how foriegn to my nature it is. Do you honestly believe gay couples can't be together for the same reasons Hetero couples are? Are you saying that they can't love each other? Because they're gay? Have you ever known a gay person in your entire life? Ever had a friend who was gay? I highly doubt that you ever have.

You wouldn't be alone in supposing that. However you also wouldn't be alone in how wrong you are. These are not attack helicopters, they are not equiped to support forward actions in an offensive combat role, e.g. fire support, low level bombing, air superiority or battlefield supremacy. These are multi use workhorses designed to do their job well with a reasonable chance of survivability. For those of you with any doubts here's a picture. Look at it and try to honestly tell me how this is any more a war machine than one designed for something like disaster relief or emergency evac or SAR. Chinook

By the very wording of your statement it would appear to be false, or at least insencere. First of all you make a broad assumption based on no facts at all, just opinion, that "the folks, many off them innocent, who will be killed when these Chinooks are used". On what knowledge or verifiable fact do you base this opinion? How do you know how many innocent people will be killed? For that matter how do you know how many "not innocent" people will be killed? Do you actually know what this aircraft is? Could you identify it if you saw it? Have you any idea of its capabilities and design purpose? If the answer to all of the above is "huh" then how do you know? At least with the certainty and authority with which you make all your claims. Next you further show your bias in making the broad assumption that you know who my enemies are. This is shown by the usage of "your enemies" in your statement. The simple fact is that you don't know who my enemies are, or if I actually have any enemies at all. This is because you know nothing about me or what I believe so you are once again making simple assumptions and stating them in a way that would indicate an absolute. All of these are signs that indicate the weak arguement, the stubborn rebuttle and the refusal to be objective despite all information you may recieve. Now we could continue taking a look at what you posted if you want to, but believe me you wont like anything else I have to say about it. For instance, the concern and folks part of your post. No where in what you posted does it honestly illustrate a genuine concern for the guys who will be using these machines. As I said before, I find your post to be not entirely honest. At best it is sycophantic and at worst it is an indication of what I previously stated, the weak arguement.