kengs333

I'm not in the mood to go there, but I'm interested in why nobody else sees this. Or maybe they do and they don't want to make an issue about it and contribute to the conspiracy of silence.

Face it, the guy doesn't know what he's talking about. I've come across a fair share of his type and it's always the same. Trying to have a reasoned debate with them is an exercise in futility.

If you really believe that then you don't know what you're talking about. I see no point in wasting my time on this any further. Since when does "getting to" translate into "is"?

A very interesting story. To the best of my knowledge, there are no members of Six Nations who post on here regularly. There were (and may still be) several who would not go out of their way to dispell the assumption that they were members of Six Nations; but in reality they are "white" and apparently have some sort of agenda other than "Native Rights". They've been attracted to the issue because it allows them to sow discord and instigate strife. If you go over to the reclaimation info message forum you'll find them posting as "timmer" and "granny" (and I'm sure there are a few others, as well, but I dn't know or really care who they are).

I think the manner in which the second story was reported was something of an issue for me; certain issues were not addressed.

Well, speaking of reading comprehension... the reference to taunting refers back to your taunts about my supposed "envy" and "jealousy" about supposedly not being able to become what members of the CF are... I made mention of the fact that they were taunts in a previous post, and you evidently read that remark because you responded with, well, more of the same kind of taunts. Needless to say, given your fine demonstration of immaturity among other unadmirable traits, why would I ever want to aspire to become something like you, to associate with a group of people who collectively function on a sub-intellectual level? I've known members of the CF, I know what drives them, how they conduct themselves, and what they lack in terms of intellect and morality. You're not fooling me by trying to suggest otherwise, although I'll admit that there is the odd exception. But by the looks of it, you're not one of them.

Who's talking "catastrophic"? Not to mention "single minded". These are misperceptions on your part. So where do the "real problems exist" then? The ultimate purpose of science is not to engage in a never-ending struggle against "the consensus" rather to determine the truth as best as possible, and that means that eventually a consensus will be reached. In a case like this, we're getting to the point where the evidence is indisputable, and so those people who still persist in suggesting that "the consensus" is wrong increasingly become marginalized, as they should be. Oh, did I say "observed... generalized warming" or did I say "suggests that the earth's average temperature is cooled"??? I believe that it was the latter. Please learn how to comprehend what you read. Maybe you should "try learning" how not to ape other people. This who business about "pronouncements" is a joke. I try to couch my arguments in non-absolute terms--ie., using words like "possible," "suggests," etc.--yet you somehow interpret this as my being "a priest". Again, what I said about the issue of reading comprehension. No, the influence of CO2 on the atmosphere is quite well understood, and therefore the correlation between increasing average temperatures and increased CO2 in the atmosphere is not really a matter of debate. There's no disputing that the "climate system is incredibly complex" and developing climate models is never a sure thing. Whenever a study is done, though, it's not like the scientists run the model once and base their findings on that alone; the whole process is a little more thorough and involved as you seem to think. And in the end, I don't think that any scientist would argue that their findings on this issue are indisputable--well, except for those "scientists" bent on debunking the "global warming 'myth'".

No, actually it was a theory until 9/11 seemed to confirm that this was possible.

I'm surprised that everyone focused on the first story and not the one about the 12 year-old girl. I think that it was the more disturbing of the two stories, since the school covered up the issue and allowed the teacher to continue teaching for another ten years during which she allegedly abused at least six other female students.

There's a clear double standard here. First of all, she was eleven years his senior, and as much as you want to think that 17 is mature enough, it isn't, especially when it comes to something of this nature. If the roles were reversed, the argument that there was manipulation by the teacher would probably be more accepted, but for some reason people don't want to entertain the notion that sweet, attractive lady teacher is just as likely to be manipulative. If you had seen the episode, you'd know that he didn't "brag" to his friends, that the fallout has been quite bad for him. It's a small town, the school had ten teachers and 100 students--she was not his teacher, but in that environment she was still in a position of authority, and what she did was wrong.

No, I did not say "show," "assume," or "prove"--I said suggest. The general scientific consensus is that mankind is contributing to climate change. There will always be people with a different theory than that of the general consensus, but what does that prove? In the vast majority of the time, when there is such a widespread general consensus among scientists as there is with climate change, a small minority on the fringe like those claiming that "global warming" is a fraud suggests that those on the fringe are there for a good reason: they're cranks. There's a theory called "global dimming" which suggests that the earth's average temperature is cooled because of all of the air traffic that occurs on a daily basis. Were all commercial air travel grounded for a long period of time--as happened for three days after 9/11--it's very likely that the effects of climate change would become much more noticeable. Nonsense.

6200+ posts and seemingly 9/10 of them seem to consist of terse sniping and sarcastic drivel.

Thought so. That explains the juvenile taunts. And you're trying to tell me that the CF has standards when it comes to IQ...? Evil is evil, but of course people who lean towards that are not going to recognize it as such. I hope one day you come to see the truth of the matter, but that takes real courage--not the phoney bravado that soldier boys like to delude themselves with. I think before the Cole incident, the Americans would have been no less vigilant in such a situation given the pre-existing political tensions.

As opposed to how many thousands of peer-reviewed studies that suggest climate change is man-made? Sorry, but the fact that you have to make hostile remarks like "refute on facts if you can" clearly shows you know your position is tenuous. Feel free to cite your "facts" if they're so true...

Excuse me? Please read the section on "Solar Variability & Global Warming". http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

Most of it's contrived anyway, to make it look as though Indians at one with nature and all loving and respectful about life and each other. If you look at ethnographical accounts of ceremonial practices when Indians still maintained their "traditional" lifestyles, this spirituality was somewhat more gruesome.

The problem with your assertion is: in order for there to be a "natural" process, there has to be something causing it to occur. When sceintists look at the evidence we have for "natural" cycles of climate change, all they can really determine is that they happened and roughly when it was occuring. So people who don't know what they're talking about will simply look at graphs and figure just because the line goes up and down a lot that there are "natural" cycles and the will ever so deftly assume that this is just another case of the line going back up. Well, those increases in temperature in fact are likely the cause of solar activity, increased volcanic activity, or some other unknown phenomenon. But do we have that now? No. But what we do have is human activity releasing high amounts of carbon into the atmosphere--this has only been happening on a large scale for the last 60-70 year, and just by coincidence, average global temperatures have risen markedly during this same period. What an interesting coincidence...

Jerry, Just about everyone who knows anything about climate change with read the following sentence: "a prestigious scientific journal that in the past has shown a decided hostility to studies that contradict the climate change hysteria" and likely go no further. That kind of nonsense is old hat and it just indicates that the writer is ignorant and driven by a neocon agenda. The only purpose that people like that serve is to delude right-wing business types that the reality of humanity's impact on the environment is all a myth so they can ruthlessly go about polluting and expoliting the earth without any guilt. I'm willing to listen to anyone's informed opinion's about climate change, but right-wing hack journalists really have no place in the debate.

Anyone happen to catch this? It was quite shocking, to say the least: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/teacherspet/

Well, I have known members of the CF, and that's basically what it boils down to, although they've of course been taught to rationalize it with altruistic and patriotic arguments to make what they're doing seem legitimate and palatible to a public that tends to abhor murder. Even those people who function is support roles are complicit and not above reproach. All of these people could easily find work in a field where killing is not the ultimate goal; they could become decent, peace-loving Christians and devote their lives to improving society and the world. But they choose not to and deserve no respect for taking the easy route to evil; being good always requires more effort and courage than being evil. That's why evil is always prevelant in society.

That explains the desperate evacuation of Saigon and the assertion of Communist rule over the entire country. Do I want a "bigger shovel"? Why? Did you find an even bigger one for yourself?

Okay, a basic geography lesson about Vietnam or suggested reading isn't something I exactly need considering how much I've read on the topic. However you want to look at it, ultimately, the Americans invaded the country/region to assert it's political agenda. That's all there is to it.

No thanks.

The thing about Vietnam is, though, that despite the fact that they were limited in certain respects, this did not mean that they were incapable of fighting a war and winning it. In some respects, the position that the Americans found themselves in was to there advantage since it's easier to co-ordinate a defense than it is an offense. All one has to do is locate large bodies of troops and eliminate them, which was done time and time again, but not as effectively as could have been done. Ready any first-had account/memoir by a soldier who served in Vietnam and there's bound to be complaints about how the "higher ups" didn't know what they were doing. Pinning the blame on politics is not valid in my opinion. Anotherreason why the war was lost was because the Americans were essentially invaders, even if they were trying to defend the country they invaded. You can kill as many of the enemy as you want, but if the people you're doing it for hate you, what difference does it make. MacArthur was axed for good reason. He wanted to attack China and start WWIII. (For those of you who aren't history buffs, the latter statements refer to the Korean War, not the Vietnam War.)

Oh, you're not going to try to convince me that people enter the military to do good, to help people, are you? People have tried that silly argument on me before and it just doesn't work. We all know why the military exists, we all know why they are trained to use weapons. People who enter the military are trained to do what otherwise is deemed criminal, therefore that makes them "state sanctioned killers". There's no "need or desire" on my part to insult, it's a simple statement of the truth. Why would I be motivated by "envy and jealousy"? Basically I disagree with the use of violence and murder to achieve an objective, to enforce the designs of a state on its own people of those of a foreign country. I suppose one could argue that your "need or desire" to trivialize a person's convictions with grade-school playground taunts is itself indicative of certain deficiencies. Need this be the case? Care to discuss the issue in a mature and reasoned manner? Well Jesus preached non-violence, so I'm not sure being critical of people who are trained and employed by a state to kill can really be considered "hatred". Still waiting for an answer to the following: