Molly

That's a cheap, cheesy, and misleading excuse. The fact is that many occupations are still largely unavailable to women, because they would not even be considered, much less hired, at entry level. That kick to the gut at entry level follows them through their entire working lives. Time off for pregnancy is meaningless when the job is underpaid busywork, rather than an actual career. Women with meaningful, reasonably well-paid occupations don't, for the most part, take that time.

Cute poem, Machjo, but I VEHEMENTLY disagree with your shockingly low linguistic expectations. If no one ever needed more from a language than simple technical information, or the ability to order a hamburger, then we could dispense with words almost entirely, and go with pictographs, saving huge effort. Much of our basic communication could readily be achieved with grunts and gestures. However, if one wishes to communicate more complex ideas, then a simplistic, mechanically-created language is a dreary and ineffective tool. The beauty of having the roots of words visible in their spellings is that nuance, implication and even whole meaning is revealed by it. In it's simplest version, 'Numo-' has a different meaning than 'pneumo-'. In your hope and effort to stamp out the complexities of language, in order to make the rudiments more available to dunderheads, you offer to stamp out higher order language use. You offer to make EVERYONE as linguistically empoverished as the slowest, least effective user of those languages. No thanks.

Gadz! You guys talk as though you've never heard a campaign speech before, for any party! News for you: that's how it's done. If you think that's arrogance, go hear a few more from any party, and get your toenails curled by the self-congratulations. I've sat in on a few that even curdled the party faithful... and they weren't Liberal campaign speeches!

Ontarians who've never been more than 400 miles from home would say the same sort of things... that this is a hardworking, pragmatic province that pulls more than it's fair share of weight... that the rest of the country is lazy and afraid (and a little bit stupid). Same in Saskatchewan; same in Newfoundland; same, same same.... And all of them would say that hard work yields benefit, and that they'd rather do it all by themselves without government participation, and then pat themselves on the back for being the smartest, most hardworking, rugged individuals of all.

I see little merit in fixed elections or term limits-- all they really do is restrict voters' options- but the right of recall is fundamental, and wa-ay overdue. I can't imagine anything that would do more to 'keep 'em honest', even if the process and the threshold were extremely demanding.

Oh Lord, Betsy.... I was about to reply saying that you had a point (and you did/do with the refutation of bacterial resistances as evidence of evolution. It is a very good illustration of selection, but without a lot more detail doesn't really cut the mustard as an example of evolution in action)... ... but you HAVE hijacked the thread; are in error that a-theism is the source of rejection of ID; in your mission to 'debunk' evolution theory, have provided no credible evidence whatsoever; misidentify 'creation theory' and ID as having any science foundation whatsoever; ... etc. etc. etc. 'ID theory' is simply not a serious scentific hypothesis. It is religion attempting to manipulate politics, in order to sacrifice science on a religous altar. I would seriously hope that my children WOULD be exposed to 'ID theory' in context, in school-- as an exercize in critical thinking. However, to present it as an accepted theory, or one with any science basis, would be an outright lie.

LOL Round and round we go... Perhaps the situation would be made clearer to Jerry and Borg and a few others of the "Why shouldn't my financial liability buy use/abuse/risk to your body?" crowd if male orgasm caused hemeroids and a few months of daily nausea. It is worth noting that one of the women I met on a maternity ward was so thrilled at the birth of her daughter that she was tempted to send the sire a thank-you card, but would not, because she didn't want 'that j***a**' in her own life, and certainly not in her childs life in any ongoing manner. Far better for both of them that he should never know. So... the use of a womans body is not what your money buys, fellows. What you are purchasing is awareness of your parenthood, and the priveleges that go with that. Some mothers don't want/need your money enough to make even that deal.

This is positive action, long overdue. I hope they take some more of the steps, but they get credit for doing this much.

http://www.rationalistinternational.net/ar...oring_loves_you Flews religious beliefs have zip to do with the validity of evolutionary theory, but the fact that you keep flogging it, referencing, and re-referening it, and re-referencing it yet again.. says a great deal about the ID/creationist mob. You see, you've misrepresented the mans beliefs-- knowingly. Just as you've misrepresented the beliefs of Dawkins, and of Darwin, and likely just about everyone else you've mentioned. And ID 'theory' (misrepresented, since it hardly rises to to the level of hare-brained hypothesis, much less theory) is also a masquerade... religion trying to dress itself up as science, and doing a far less than credible job of it, for the single purpose of sneaking religion into publicly funded classrooms. The sneaking and pretense, the determination to mislead, the misrepresentation and falsification.... those are completely consistent. They call that 'divine deception'... that no sin is too great, if it dupes someone into conversion. Yours is a God of telling whoppers, Betsy. The truth will set you free.

If he hated it so much, he might even have established one or more of the other possible citizenships that would easily have been available to him, to hold even in tandem with his Canadian citizenship... but he didn't.

With a sincere heart and a straight face he says that. Un......believeable.

For purposes of the rules, I'd call it an observation, since he also makes to case to illustrate its validity.

Why should one even address such tripe as the proposal- nay, insistence- that the notion of natural selection would 'prove that there is no god', much less that Darwin set out to prove non-existence? That's a falsehood on it's face... preposterous. Rediculous. To reply at all is to expect that a self-claimed irrationalist should transform to become, at least for the duration of your reply, rational. Ain't going to happen.

Deleted. Redundant.

A strong word, Canadien, but not an inaccurate one.

That link I offered poses the question: 'Define literacy.' It's an interesting challenge. After much reflection, I decided that literacy demands the ability to gather MORE information from the written word than you would from the same thing, spoken. I say 'more', because the written word is not bound by time. It can be considered, and re-read until understanding is complete. It doesn't demand fluency, but it does demand the ability to analyze to full understanding.

I truly wish I agreed with you, but I don't. A literacy rate of 99% is, beyond any shadow of doubt, based on something other than measured literacy. Likely school attendance in this case, but school attendance is by no means a guarantee of literacy. Attention is paid to language arts for the class, but not so much language arts for the individual child. Some get lost in the shuffle, especially if they don't have a grimly determined parent/advocate. Remedial programs are expensive, and kids who are missed are often percieved to BE, rather than to HAVE a problem, and the inclination is to blame rather than to assist.

Good luck with that theory. I spend some time in another forum, and just read a conversation between two who are definitely small-c, and habitually large-C conservatives. They described those ads, and the inspiration to run them as 'pretty pathetic', and expressed disgust that their government is too busy 'playing the game' to govern. It would be a tough pull for either of them to vote Liberal, but I'd be willing to bet that neither of them will vote Conservative without some serious personnel change and attitude adjustment, either. If it makes Tories stay home from elections, then I say, run 'em. Run more of 'em!

This is old, Bubbermiley, but still well worth reading. (A tad off-topic, too, but what the heck.) http://www.nald.ca/fulltext/Brokword/cover.htm

Hmmm. Mark me down as thinking it's still really not okay.

Fair enough, Bill.... but it remains that the Conservative track record is: Disinclusion, nastiness (gratuitous, even self-destructive nastiness, in fact)... and a long, long, long list of 'firmly held principles', thrown under the bus, disavowed the very millisecond they became even faintly inconvenient. You can 'believe Harper when he speaks', or accept August's assertion that 'English Canadians' do... but this 'English' Canadian thinks he's so full of crap that it's running out of his ears. I don't want to do business with salesmen who are vindictive, mendacious snakes with a 'bill of goods' on offer, who, even in the unlikely event that they keep their promises, are offering stuff I really don't want anyway... Keepitsimple mistakes me. I'm not by any means committed to the Liberal party; I'm just really intensely disenchanted with Harper and the Conservative party he heads.

You are trying to be sarcastic, but the fact is, they ARE much more inclusive, and yes, more caring. And I don't recall them engaging in the kind of rediculous, delusional hyperbole about their own integrity that the Conservatives have done.

Oh, I get it all right. Betsy 'believes' what Betsy believes, and any interruption in her metaphysical masturbation is irrelevant.

Yes/no on a matter of your own subjective experience too tricky a question for you? No matter. It was directed more at anyone/everyone else. My expectation is that you a) have never recieved any education in biology, or b ) didn't understand a word of it if you did, or c) wouldn't answer honestly anyway. I realize that you are a little slow, and much more interested in being abrasive than in engaging in dialogue, but the reason I'd like replies on that question is because he is describing clear overselling-- false instruction. If that paragraph is accurate, then it is a serious issue, and he really has a point. (If, on the other hand, it is hyperbole- intentional or not-, then he's just another faith-based liar.) It is not my experience, but my experience is not necessarily representative , and I cannot 'extrapolate' the experiences of others so as to honestly assess whether it is a credible report. (I could, however, extrapolate using other indicators, and will have to if no one chooses to answer. )

That's a stretch. Do you? Did you believe that the economy was in great shape? That there would be no deficit? That the Conservatives much care about green anything? (No, I resolve not to start listing, or this will be a pointlessly, but exceptionally long post.)