waldo

is this your way of peeling back and retracting all those mind numbing "enthusiastic" references to "6 year old Grade 6 students" that you made... in your most enthusiastic bold-highlighted, red-coloured, and large font-sized lettering? I've also got my copy of the Ontario Curriculum ready and primed to that Grade 6 section. Rather than make MLW members "go fetch" and try to find just what you claimed you quoted, why not just be direct and state it again - yes? Surely this isn't a problem for you, is it? . if you're not here to, as you say, "convince you (guys)"... just why are you posting with all your religious fervor? If you're not prepared to speak to so-called, 'skeptics, atheists, agnostics... heathens', aren't you just preaching to the choir? .

insightful - thanks. Helps to frame why you're such a die-hard Trump supporter... although, for now, Trumps job-creating schtick is just campaign fodder. . hey, I'll take a bite on that somewhat peculiar, "Black Lives Matter", comparative justification benchmark between Hitler and Stalin: Hitler vs. Stalin --- Who Killed More - Who Was Worse? .

I'm so confused here! In recent weeks I read others (and now you) stating the guy is a she... and black! You're messin with all my formed/forged impressions of the guy. In any case, again... simsub is the "here and now" and the CRTC has not (as I'm aware) given any indication to, through regulation, preventing simsub. More pointedly, it has actually moved towards regulation to hold broadcasters to account for errors related to simsub. Again... not the future! .

again, simsub is the "here and now"... please stop (purposely) derailing this thread from its futurist theme/intent. .

your 'double DOH' scores an own goal on your DOH .

with the help of an Expert Advisory Group, Minister Joly will lead public, stakeholder and online consultations beginning summer 2016 on strengthening Canadian content creation, discovery and export in a digital world. the consultations will encompass information and entertainment content as presented in television, radio, film, digital media and platforms, video games, music, books, newspapers and magazines... with an objective to begin identifying the tools and policy levers that will guide the work of Canadian Heritage over the course of the government’s mandate to foster a leading, resilient and innovative cultural sector that meets the needs of Canadians and Canadian creators. current policy framework/toolkit: expert advisory group named:

other than feeding the continued derail... why bother with discussing the 'here and now' simsub? What does this add to a thread discussion on the future broadcasting/new media? .

it boggles to continue to see the 'usual MLW suspects' continuing to scour the internet for their nuggests/gems in other continents/countries. Apparently, since there appear to be no avenues for these 'usual MLW suspects' to tap into and present concerns directly related to and impacting upon Canada/Canadians, they need to do... what they need to do! .

my first clue is whether or not you're pushing the report/incident/article... you're like the 'canary in the mine-shaft' alerting to bogus/suspect/questionable sources. .

BS! Your agenda driven "reason" is quite clear - you scour the interweeb for anything that suggests Canadians are viewing an American program/broadcast... and when you find it you scurry back here with your snarc-like commentary. Of course you always have your ready go-to sources, like... Numeris ratings! Nothing is sweeter than reading you so flummoxed in some thread to the point your only recourse to to reach for one of your ready go-to sources in some type of retaliatory act that appears to allow you to manage your frustrations. of course the obvious begging question is just why does Canada, just why do Canadians (and their media viewing practices) so enthrall you... so captivate your attention! Just why is Canada, just why are Canadians so important to you? now, for as much time/attention you give to posturing as an expert on Canada's regulatory oversight, on Canada's CRTC, it always continues to boggle me that you truly haven't a grasp of the fundamentals. Well... it's either that or you feign ignorance to allow you a tailoring approach to better suit your agenda! This quoted post of yours is classic and showcases how little you truly understand and recognize about the existing regulatory framework. Quite obviously you shouldn't need to be schooled in the fact that it is less expensive for Canadian broadcasters to acquire American programming than to produce Canadian programming; that is to say, the purchased American programming has already covered its costs in the American domestic market. Equally, market share/drive shows that, typically, American programming can be more profitable in terms of cost recovery ala advertising given, again, cost covering aspects. It is the CRTC regulatory intervention that helps to shape a balance and prevent the market force driven Canadian private broadcasters from purchasing even greater levels of "cheap" American programming. You regularly drop links to Numeris ratings and start chirping about how Canadians are just so enthralled by American programming - all part of your simplistic agenda and want to continue to stroke your personal sensitivities and suspect confidence levels in your own-self/country. .

now I can't recall if you started the related status update... but I'm pretty sure you "complained whined about" police cover-up within that status update when I added a summary reference to this lil' nugget: Blaming the Swedish festival rapes on migrants isn't just wrong – it's dangerous just a case of... yet another case of, an "enthusiastic MLW member" who just blindly accepts "bias confirming" articles without actually checking for related facts. A true "Copy & Paste" brigade we have here, hey! .

if it's so obvious... why didn't that "investigative hit job" from the G&M present the evidence... actual evidence... not your preferred inference ala innuendo! For all the G&M's blustering over "inside industry sources" coming forward, how is it those "insiders" failed to provide any, uhhh..... you know... actual evidence of your claimed influence peddling? .

but... per your brazillion posts emphasis throughout this thread... is it an "enthusiastically" radical curriculum? C'mon, you can hide from my posts, but you can't run! Again, I challenge you two-fold: - put forward an actual quote that has the Ontario Premier/Minister directly stating the phrase, "enthusiastic consent". Show your source didn't just make it up; show that you didn't just blindly accept your sources made up shyte and proceed to use that phrase a brazillion times throughout this thread! - in keeping with your emphasis on "radical" and your blatant misuse of that "enthusiastic" labeling in regards to a sexual emphasis towards "6 year old Grade One students", show within the curriculum document (or references to it), that there is a sexual connotation in regards the actual subject of "informed consent" presented in a benign (non-sexual) context emphasizing, "listening and interpreting facial expressions and body language". .

it's too bad you don't get more attention put to your bogus sources! That lil' nugget has been dropped around here before - the actual full link to your reference to Sweden --- something I addressed in a prior thread post; specifically: It appears a single blogged article is the same source that has fueled a litany of blogger articles that account for the "meme" concerning rape in Sweden (at large), immigrant rape in Sweden and... ultimately... Muslim immigrant rape in Sweden. The BBC published an article that speaks to the difficulties in translating rape statistics across nations, particularly in regards to Sweden; most notably in that regard is just how Sweden categorizes and reports rape. The Swedish government does not keep stats that categorize rape/religion... which doesn't stop the originating source from claiming "Govt report... government statistics"! It appears the originating source relies upon nothing more than this actual gem/nugget: "anonymously confirmed by Swedish polish in a phone conversation" ... itself, reflecting upon 4 years of data during the 1980s... data that was then "massaged" forward with the most liberal interpretations as to "native born versus immigrant versus Muslim immigrant". as for what data the Swedish government does officially gather... does officially publish in regards to rape/sexual offenses (re: most current 2014): your is a typical approach ala "Gish Gallop"... within a post you often throw down numerous statements/claims and generic links that require MLW members, even if inclined, to spend copious amounts of time attempting to verify your sources. Even if one were to choose to attempt to review and confirm your sources within one post, you readily move on and drop several others into the mix. "Gish Gallop"... it is very apropos that the term was coined to associate to the tactics deployed by "Duane Gish" - you know, one of your past ready-go-to sources, one of the more profiled creationists out there! .

and per my previous post it's a phrase I contend your OP source, "Campaign Life Coalition" made up and falsely attributed to the Premier/Minister. Something that you then exploited a brazillion times throughout this thread. Of course, you could prove me wrong by providing an actual sourced quote when the Premier/Minister use that exact phrase... you could do that, yes? more pointedly, you kept harping on "6 year old Grade One" students being faced with sexual connotative reference to this very "Enthusiastic Sexual Consent" facet. Care to actually cite from the curriculum document (or references to it) that speak directly and explicitly to this facet. As I stated in my prior post I contend that level of "informed consent" is totally benign (not sexually related) and associates with dialogue/listening and interpretations of facial expressions and body language. Care to prove me wrong? Sure you can! .

talk about "mock"... that's me continuing to mock you with your simulator references. Why wouldn't LockMart/JPO put forward actual flight engagements to counter the big-time media buzz that ensued as a result of that actual (not mock, not simulator) F-16/F-35 exchange? You would think this would have been paramount in the, as the Janes article highlights, "proving otherwise" - wouldn't you? . when you already have stated this and I reply back that I never claimed any such thing... why do you immediately come back with it again? You're right, "as far as I know... no one has suggested the F-35 as a more superior 'air superiority' fighter than the F-22" - INCLUDING ME! . oh my! You've just scored an own goal. You'll need to provide your own answer here... when you simply choose to exclude 4/4.5 gen aircraft and then follow that up with this latest suggestion of yours to also exclude Russian/Chinese 5th gen aircraft, you tell me what the former head of the USAF air-combat command was referring to when he stated, “The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22.” You tell me what that statement means - you tell me what the F-35 needs the F-22 for/against? You tell me. .

please sir, I call BS! That report you've provided is absolutely not the, as you say, "quote source". How could it be when it explicitly states the following: would you like a do-over? .

already addressed here in this prior post: you know, that Janes article that you simply ignored! Per summation: "The point the War is Boring article was trying to make, and the point the JPO has failed to refute in its rebuttal, is that aircraft do not always get to fight on their terms, and that it is no good saying that just because the F-35 is not designed to dogfight it will never have to do so..... This concern will persist until the F-35 is able to prove otherwise, regardless of whether the aircraft was designed to dogfight or not." . my suggested benchmark? That's doesn't follow from anything I've stated. Again, it was your reference to the former USAF air-combat command head that prompted me to remind you just what he said about the F-35 not being an air-superiority jet... in regards to "close-in, high maneuverability" combat - that the F-35 needed the F-22 to support it. Your guy - the guy you brought forward and quoted - that guy! And again, he never compared the F-35 to the F-22 directly... but clearly, by implication, his was a most damning testament of the F-35s deficiency relative to the F-22 needing to support it against "other comers... other 4th/4.5 gen aircraft". .

which, surprisingly, doesn't address what I stated in regards the 200 pound limit/threshold. You're ignoring the source I provided and refusing to actually address the 200 pound reference. Here, try this one: or this one: F-35’s Latest Hurdle Could Send It Back To Contracting Purgatory .

guys, guys... it's not "my Liberal party"... I don't live in Ontario! C'mon poochy - there's really little/nothing to rebut. Rules are being followed and absolutely no (none, nada, zilch) claims of influence peddling have been made... no examples have been provided showing the Ontario government favouring the paying attendees with contracts or favourable policy decisions. Talk about a fizzled nothing of a so-called investigative "scoop" by the G&M! When the best the G&M can throw down is a suggestion that "the perception of a conflict of interest exists"... and here Argus you so trumpeted that "scoop"! But hey, no worries... new rules are being written for pending fall legislative review - you know, to deal with "optics and perceptions". Argus, your own article (and a prior G&M lead-in article) actually quote industry reps and lobbyists speaking to why they attend... what they believe they can learn/recognize... and factor - and, surprisingly, it's more than your "food reference"! .

to argue semantics concerning "enthusiastic consent" requires, per this thread OP, to just blindly accept the phrase as written/assigned (to Ontario Premier Wynne/Minister Sandals), by one of the OP sources referenced - Campaign Life Coalition. Of course that phrase is quite literally used a hundred+ times throughout this thread... often in mind-numbing, large font, bold, red-colour! "Enthusiastic" is just a word after all! Isn't it... no biggee, right? I read several direct references from legitimate mainstream sources that attach the word "informed" to yield the phrase "informed consent"... and attribute that word, that phrase, to Ontario Premier Wynne/Minister Sandals. So just where did that "enthusiastic" word enter? Well, unless the OP is prepared to actually yield a direct quote that attributes it to Ontario Premier Wynne/Minister Sandals... I will "enthusiastically" state Campaign Life Coalition made shyte up and the OP simply ran with it. I "enthusiastically" suggest the word/phrase originates from a petition by two Grade 8 girls from Toronto who lobbied for “consent culture” to be reflected in the new curriculum document: and what's this! Addressing issues of consent with 6-year old Grade 1 students... has no sexual connotation whatsoever... just listening and interpreting facial expressions and body language! What a concept. just another par-for-the-course example where this MLW member takes extreme liberty with sources/quotes! Clearly... this could have been "nipped in the bud" from the onset... but when the OP is literally a massive, disjointed, rambling verbose mess, the liberties taken get disguised quite well - indeed! .

sorry... simulation only counts in non-real world circumstances. Hey, did ya know... you can make those simulators do just about anything... and show just about anything! Who knew. wait a minute here... why you just shifted the focused emphasis away from "close-range, high maneuverability". Well done!

per the threads intent: recent commentary from Dr. Michael Geist in regards the FUTURE of set-top boxes, vis-a-vis a recent Federal Court ruling that issued an injunction banning several companies from distributing any set-top boxes with pre-loaded software: Set-top box crackdown will chill Canada's tech innovation: A recent federal court ruling targets a disruptive technology that everyone agrees has both legitimate and infringing uses. .

are you done now? Are you done derailing this thread from its futurist theme? As for foreign content, I personally sure likee some of that British flavoured mystery/drama/documentaries - and you? don't worry about those occasional "errors" when simultaneous substitution isn't done properly. You see, if you actually acknowledged content in my replies to your continued derailing you would recognize the CRTC, is addressing improper "simsub" through... regulation! .

please sir, you continue to derail this thread! Simultaneous substitution has no bearing on the "future" per this thread OP... simultaneous substitution is "the here and now"! Per the CRTC: now, if you think you can get some mileage for your agenda through the CRTC's response to some degree of Canadian public request for live Super Bowl commercials... hey, fill yer boots! I will simply continue to highlight and reinforce you are derailing this thread from its futurist theme. Surely given the importance Canada/Canadians have to you, surely you can help to speak to real futurism for the Canadian dissemination of multi-media options/sources - surely! .