Moonbox

On that I'll agree with you 100%. It's a rather minor issue, all things said. It's just a decision that made very little sense, particularly given his already weak reputation in the scientific/academic community. The statisticians and academics (the people who know best) are the ones complaining the loudest about the change. Technically possible, yes. Realistically? The problem with voluntary surveys (vs mandatory) is that you're not getting statistically representative data. That's a huge problem.

No doubt, but I think a lot of that support comes from residual anti-Republican (thanks to George W), the fact that Obama's black and that he supports some form of universal health care. The average Canadian, I would suspect, has literally no idea what his administration has accomplished (or failed to).

While this is definitely true, it's not just the "left" that would like to see the mandatory long-form census back. It may indeed be a tempest in a teapot, but its one of those things that didn't need abolishing in the first place and there didn't appear strong justification for the move.

I don't think the census makes any expectation that people are going to accurately calculate their income and work days down to the dollar/hour. A best guess is usually good enough. The census isn't a tax return. The amount of time saved is negligible. If you're already making a point of filling it out, you might as well take the extra couple of minutes to fill it out properly. It's common sense Tim. People generally lie for a reason. If it doesn't get you anywhere, why would you bother? Are you that spiteful? Yes, under the right circumstances. What are you getting at?

I can't tell you how many people are charged with the old long form (it would be interesting if you have that data available), but I know that all sorts of people have been charged with refusing/failing to fill out the census in recent years. It's a $500 fine and up to 3 months in prison. Regardless, the threat of legal action (likely or not) is in many cases enough to influence behavior. The statistics from external surveys are notoriously unreliable and often next to useless. These companies can only dream about getting statistically representative sampling. There's no incentive to be dishonest about the census. The required effort for fudging your census responses is the same as filling it out truthfully. Lying on the census, therefore, serves absolutely no end and is counterproductive to good government and social policy. Spiteful census responses are about as intelligent and mature as a 4-yr old refusing to eat dinner to punish his parents. It's just being stupid, and I'd wager +95% of people fill it out properly. There'd be literally no reason not to.

Hahaha...except not at all. That was good for a laugh though, thanks. My point couldn't have been any more clear in the quote. If you can't wrap your head around it, that's sad. I'm sure you thought it did, but you've demonstrated a dazzling talent for tossing links around without referencing what about them is relevant to the argument. When you combine this with your typically liberal interpretations of what they're actually saying, most of these links turn out to be entirely inadequate citations. I did, and you can dig it up if you so desire. Quite frankly I've grown tired of you and don't find your dead-horse beating and penchant to argue in circles stimulating anymore. You'll find, as you already have hundreds of times before on this thread, that you've bored/annoyed your opponent away. No, globalsecurity was never goofy, but citing it without any comment on what part of your argument it's supposed to support is. As for the blog I posted, it was a supplementary piece with some neat illustrations that I used to underscore a conclusion drawn from numerous other sources. You, on the other hand, creatively interpreted some of the material on it to suit your shameful BS, and then held it up against all of the more reliable and conflicting sources provided. As I've mentioned numerous times already, your argument depends entirely on your creative interpretation of a blog and it's those interpretations that I find suspect, not the blog itself. Regardless, even if we were to accept your BS and dissimulation about what the blog was saying, you still have to reconcile it with the fact that globalsecurity, among other places, specifically refute it. Clinging to the argument from that point on requires you to confirm that Larry's blog is more reliable than globalsecurity.org. Is that what you're saying??

The distinction is meaningless. A non-mandatory long-form census gets about as much attention from the average Canadian as a mailed-out flier. If you actually feel that way, then you know absolutely nothing about statistics. Do you take the same approach with your tax returns? Come on man. I know you're smarter than that.

The Obama administration is the problem, not the USA proper. Obama has made no effort to be a friend to Canada and has been a complete disaster on the foreign stage. At this point the only real positive his administration could claim is, "Hey, at least we didn't invade Iraq!". Considering how bad Bush was, perhaps we can consider that a win. Regardless, the guy's a jerk and has been quoted/recorded on numerous occasions insulting foreign allied leaders. He has the professionalism of a potato and the convictions of a criminal lawyer, showing over and over again that he can't get much of anything done.

Abolishing the long-form census was a stupid, plain and simple. The reasons for abolishing it were senseless and it saved the government negligible amounts of money and the average Canadian negligible amounts of time.

You quoted exactly what I'm claiming. Refer to that. Linking to globalsecurity isn't goofy. The conclusions you were attempting to support with the link were, since it link didn't actually back up anything you were saying. That exact question has been answered about 12 times now. Your standard tactics of argument by (dumb) question and by broken-record repetition isn't nearly as smart or effective as you think it is...unless of course your goal is merely to annoy and exhaust your opponent out of the thread. As we've seen already, globalsecurity.org gives us a very specific definition for a demolition bomb: A light-case bomb, also known as a demolition bomb, is a type of general-purpose bomb having a thin, light metal casing and designed to accomplish damage by blast primarily. In some of the very large light-case bombs, the detonating charge accounts for 75 percent of the bomb's weight. These bombs, designed particularly for demolition work, accomplish their mission almost entirely through the blast effect. With that, the absurdity of your position becomes painfully clear. Globalsecurity is a reliable source, unless it disagrees with what your saying! In such cases, your personal interpretations of blogger material is the new gospel!

It was a brutal, hilarious dodge. Your supposed distinction was arbitrary and made no sense for what it was responding to. I said the allies dropped huge bombs on German cities, and your response was that they didn't drop massive demolition bombs on them. That's like me saying "George killed the man with a knife" and you arguing "No, he didn't kill him with a rusty knife!" Worse, however, is that even this bizarre dissimulation was botched, since the 4000-lb bomb I was talking about actually IS a demolition bomb, as defined by pretty much anywhere you want to look - including your friends at globalsecurity.org! No, but like I already said I was mocking you, not the website. Your link, as I mentioned, didn't provide any support for your position or do anything to refute what I was saying. So does that mean that globalsecurity.org has it all wrong? They confirm the definition I've provided, as do numerous other places. How many differing definitions have you been able to provide? Oh that's right...none! When you're making crap up it's kind of hard to support your position with facts! Did I say they were anywhere? Did I make any mention, anywhere, that they were used on hardened targets? No? Is your question, therefore, nothing more than another dumb false-argument!? You've nattered at length about a bunch of stuff that doesn't even support your ill-defined and fluffy argument. It's long-winded gobbledygook that dances circles around the central point but doesn't refute anything I'm saying. Sure, a bomb is generally going to do more damage to a building if it explodes inside instead of outside it - no argument there. Was the technical description of why good for anything other than your chest-puffing? Unfortunately no. The "cookie" is still a demolition bomb and it was still exceedingly effective in allied area bombing raids against soft German cities! I hope you didn't hurt yourself coming up with that... Hate to break it to you Derek, but you were the one who brought up examining Allied bombing campaigns on German/Japanese cities as useful references to the sort of devastation North Korean artillery could lay into Seoul. I told you they weren't, explaining why Allied area bombing was so devastating in comparison to artillery sieges in the same conflict. I even gave you examples of prolonged WW2 sieges, where the Germans/Soviets couldn't flatten smaller and less sturdy cities than Seoul despite having far more (and often bigger) guns firing from far closer range. My opinion of the potential of artillery against cities is based on actual historical examples (ie. Leningrad/Berlin) and as you saw some fairly detailed and informed third-party analysis. Your opinion appears mostly based on pop-culture quotes!

Exactly. Afghanistan - the 3000 year-old armpit of Asia, always among the most violent, backwards and isolated places on Earth.

Target Canada failed because it was incompetently launched. As for promises, what promises does the Canadian Healthcare system have to keep? Not really any. Things obviously aren't good as they stand, nor are they likely to improve anytime soon, but costs will continue to increase.

That's a flimsy, nonsense dodge which I specifically addressed on the previous page and which you curiously avoided responding to. Let's try again: All I said is that 4000-lb bombs were dropped on cities like Dresden and your response was: I'd never even mentioned the term demolition bomb yet, so when you quoted me and responded with this the only thing you were denying was that they dropped 4000-lb bombs on soft targets like cities. After having that thrown back in your face for the stupidity that it was, you fabricated a long-winded false-argument suggesting that you were actually talking about demolition bombs (despite me never mentioning the term). Hilariously, however, you got even that brutally wrong! You couldn't even put together a competent distraction from your ignorance! Not biting on that one, sorry Derek. You can go digging weeks back into this thread if you so desire, but you'll find that I never questioned the validity of globalsecurity.org's material. Where did I say Derek? You really need to be able to bring something to the table better than argument-by-question, especially when these questions are putting words in other people's mouths. See below for an example of your (typically) confused logic in use: So you're saying that smaller blasts have greater destructive force than larger blasts??? /yawn. A whole lot of nattering bluster with nothing useful provided to the argument. Like I said before, you have trouble keeping track of the discussion, or understanding it...I'm not sure. I never said the cookie bomb would be particularly effective against Seoul. I said it was exceedingly effective against cities like Dresden (RAF estimates @ 1.4x as effective as similar weight in conventional bombs) because they were of (mostly) soft construction. This was all in response to your goof claim that the North Koreans turn Seoul into another Dresden - clearly demonstrating you knew crap all about Allied firebombings in WW2 along with a good many other things.

It was one among many sources I provided, all of them refuting your claim that 4000-lb bombs weren't dropped on soft targets like cities! I'm not discrediting my source. The facts that I drew from it can be confirmed anywhere else you want to look, which is why you accepted it. The BS that you're peddling, however, is synthesized from feeble semantics and grasping conclusions that you've personally fabricated - all of them running directly contrary to any other available sources! No, Derek, I did not. I mocked you because globalsecurity.org's assessment didn't confirm what you were saying, lol. Trying to change the subject again, huh? Key line here: They are usually fitted with... They = demolition bombs (as defined in the previous sentence). Can you direct me to the line where it says the definition changes if it isn't not fitted with a delayed-fuze? Nice try, but still failing spectacularly in basic comprehension. Cookie bombs were used on soft targets. I think we've been over that about 100 times now. because Western air forces haven't engaged in area-bombing against civilians for 40+ years. Wait...blast waves don't dissipate? After reading that, I can't take the rest of your wikipedia-science paraphrasing seriously. There you are again, trying to put words in someone's mouth. If you that's all you can put together for an argument, you should really give up. The 4000-lb bombs were more effective at destroying WW2 German cities, which were mostly soft and wooden, and especially when combined with incendiaries. Seoul is not Dresden.

I've made it pretty clear what I'm suggesting - that no definitions were provided and that nowhere on the website were the terms "blast bombs" or "demolition bombs" even used. Your argument, easily summarized, is that since some guy named Larry's website says that MC/GP bombs were used for industrial demolition (demolition being synonymous with destruction), we somehow have irrefutable proof that the 4000-lb HC bomb wasn't a demolition bomb. Globalsecurity.org, however, specifically defines the HC bomb as a demolition bomb (so does everywhere else). Your argument therefore not only sucks on basic principle, it also requires you to take the ridiculous position that some guy named Larry is a more credible source than the folks at globalsecurity.org who you so often like to quote! I didn't dodge, lol. I answered directly: Oops! but you did make up your own distinction between blast and demolition bombs, along with your own fabricated definitions for the terminology to suit your argument - definitions you've been incapable of supporting with any of your own sources, that are fully contradictory to existing sources, and that rely 100% on your broad and self-serving interpretation of what some guy named Larry's website said! Here's another tidbit for you: "Bombs can be classified according to their use and the explosive material they contain. Among the most common types are blast (demolition), fragmentation, general purpose, antiarmour (armour-piercing), and incendiary (fire) bombs.... Demolition bombs rely on the force of the blast to destroy buildings and other structures. " http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/72491/bomb#ref103515 The blast does destroy the target. A larger blast does have more destructive force. Are you saying it doesn't? If you want to be deflective and ambiguous, I can play along. Just for fun, why don't you consider why the Allies weren't using inert/concrete bombs for "industrial demolition." I didn't say that either. That's twice now that you've deliberately misquoted me. I said the effect of the blast is magnified. If it's a firecracker in your closed hand (as opposed to an open one), it's because the energy has nowhere to dissipate except into and through your hand. and hilariously, we finally come full circle back to the original point: I never said the 4000-lb HC bomb was used against hardened concrete, or even for industrial demolition. All I said is that 4000-lb bombs were dropped on cities like Dresden and your response was: I'd never even mentioned the term demolition bomb yet, so when you quoted me and responded with this the only thing you were denying was that they dropped 4000-lb bombs on soft targets like cities. After having that thrown back in your face for the stupidity that it was, you fabricated a long-winded false-argument suggesting that you were actually talking about demolition bombs (despite me never mentioning the term). Hilariously, however, you got even that brutally wrong! You couldn't even put together a competent distraction from your ignorance!

My bad, I goofed my quoting. Here's what I meant: to which you responded: So as we can see, your position on this flops around depending on how it affects your argument, much like the reliability of globalsecurity.org. When you're quoting it, it's undeniable fact. When someone else quotes it specifically refuting your point, it's not so reliable after all, and you wriggle around inventing reasons why. No, you evaded with a "that depends on..." followed by a bunch of nattered vagueries. When asked to clarify you waffled and dodged. The answer, of course, is that fragmentation has negligible effect on hardened targets, thus the only part of a mixed fragmentation/blast bomb that's actually demolishing anything is the blast effect, rendering your made-up distinction between blast and demolition bombs meaningless. because it was designed to destroy soft targets, which is what you said it wasn't used for! Ain't logic a bitch!? There you are again, inventing false arguments and putting words in someone's mouth. I specifically said "the effect of the blast is magnified", so here you're deliberately misrepresenting my statement and at the same time demonstrating some tragically incompetent reasoning.

Umm: Like I said, you can't even keep track of what you're saying! Nice deflection - more Derek waffling. Why don't you tell us what "variables" would make fragmentation effective against hardened concrete or railways? I suspect it's because they were designed to resist external explosive/demolition blasts. In these cases a different method of delivery was required. The method of demolition, however, remained the same (blast), especially in the case of the dam-busting bouncing bombs which weren't even intended to hit their targets! To turn your undeveloped logic around on you, why didn't the RAF drop inert penetrators on these targets? Obviously the one in the left hand, since the blast would be magnified/concentrated in the enclosed space. Unfortunately for you, this doesn't mean that this firecracker is now considered a "demolition firecracker" . They're still both just firecrackers! Derek-logic is always good for a laugh!

but you just said there were no defined terms, just intended uses. It seems with all of your flopping and flailing, you can't even keep track of your own argument! I've taken a page out of Derek's Book on Debating. Since you clearly think that argument-by-question is an effective way to prove your point, I've chosen to throw it back in your face. That this somehow irritates you is pretty funny, showing a remarkable lack of perspective. One key difference, however, is that mine isn't misdirection, nor does it put words in your mouth. No, you answered it disingenuously and vaguely, so I'm attempting to clarify your position. Follow me for a second (if you can): According to you, the GP bomb is to be considered a demolition bomb simply because it was used for industrial demolition on targets like factories, railways and dockyards. Since (once again according to you) the demolition of said targets was accomplished by both blast and fragmentation, your logic would therefore dictate that fragmentation is effective at demolishing these types of targets. So here we are, with you placing yourself in a logical conundrum, with three available options: 1) You can concede that fragmentation has little/no effect against hard targets - by default correctly acknowledging that the demolition is actually caused by blast effects and thus rendering your made-up distinction between blast/demolition bombs dead. 2) You can absurdly persist in claiming that fragmentation is effective at destroying concrete buildings, railways etc...thus begging for a likely bizarre explanation! 3) You can dodge, in typical Derek-fashion, and attempt some sort of misdirection/subject change. Your choice! Whatever option you pick, I'm sure I'll get a laugh!

You mean Harper doesn't = George Bush, and Justin Trudeau doesn't = Obama?!

Is that what qualifies as a definition in your bizarre mind? So let me be clear: You're saying that the fragmentation of the bomb casing in a standard GP bomb is effective at demolishing concrete walls, railway tracks, dockyards etc!?!? Your wimpy debating tactics are getting predictable. Obviously you don't like where the conversation is going, so you're trying desperately to lead us on another of your long-winded tangents!

Ah, so you mean it doesn't actually provide any definitions for the different types of bombs, or for the terminology used. Thanks for confirming my point...albeit kicking and screaming. Right, so now that you've blathered on about varying compositions of GP bombs (another dodge - nobody asked), which part of a 50/50 blast/fragmentation mix is doing the demolition work? It hasn't changed, nor evolved, but that's not what we're talking about at the moment. This is just another example of you attempting to change the direction/topic of the conversation, since you obviously don't like where it's going (ie. more obfuscating). I'm not biting, sorry!

That hasn't stopped the police or fire dept unions from negotiating rich compensation packages.

Even tabloids get the story right sometimes. That doesn't mean that they're not still mostly garbage. Sure, except the Star devotes 99% of its energy to criticizing Harper and the Tories, brazenly refusing to print anything regarding the good things they've done or the bad things their opponents have done. It prints less than half the story. It's a hack newspaper with zero credibility.

but you've already told us that they're "demolition" bombs, remember!?! The loadout link, according to Derek-logic, defines the type of bomb they are! Right, so you nattered for a whole paragraph, saying nothing of use, while making sure to dodge the question. I'll ask again: What part of the bomb's effects do the demolition work? Is it blast, or fragmentation? You mean all of the time you've spent obfuscating, dodging and flailing lamely with a non-existent argument? Right...