waldo

no one here, other than yourself... is "taking it". And yes, it absolutely speaks for itself; it's unfortunate you are blinded by your own false interpretation. In pointing out the relative obscurity of that NAS article, in pointing out that if it had any weight to it, it would be championed up the 'ying yang' as the preeminent go-to "proof/source" so many of the "faithful" are forever seeking... in pointing that out, you now come back with an implication to suggest your linked NAS article, "has been used in discussions". Can you elaborate on that further... are you able to cite examples of same... can you present some of that "ying yang"? .

your 2 sources: World Net Daily and the 'moonie' Times... well done. A cursory look shows much (most?) of that WND list reflects directly on Bill Clinton - even without considering validity of any of it (which has been beat on through his own candidacy/presidency)... how Christian of you to attach them, by association, to Hillary Clinton. Looking directly at events related to Hillary Clinton herself, those are all highly contentious and partisan points - one's she has been defended on by her own partisan side... one's she will need to, potentially, defend/debate herself. How Christian of you to simply throw out a list, with no regard to it's credibility/accuracy! But then we're quite well versed in just how far you've been prepared to extend upon Trump campaign and personal Trump fabrications/lies, right? .

as before, as always - your interpretation of that statement is incorrect. Your inability to present a single example of 'scientific finding evidence' for "God creation" is a fitting testament to your failed interpretation. The very fact you thumped for years without that NAS article reference showcases its obscurity and insignificance... there is NO there, there! If there was, clearly, it would be the focal point of all related discussion/debate and would be the over-riding reference measure. .

given your implication, to you, what membership is lacking, presumably making it more representative in your view. Please try to be less overtly partisan than MLW member Argus and his clairvoyant party/voting/ideology labeling. Thanks in advance. .

so you keep saying, repeatedly, ad nauseam! Yet, interestingly... as I'm aware, you've never provided just how many jobs Trump has created - go figure, hey? given Trump Organization is principally leisure & hospitality companies and includes 22,000 employees (permanent and part-time)... dominated by lower-pay service industry type jobs, a standard U.S. jobs multiplier for 'leisure and hospitality' is 1.5 for additional related jobs created. If inclined, please update my suggested number of Trump employees, with that multiplier, @ 34,000. geezaz, that 34,000 isn't a very high bar for you to always be comparing Trump job creation to Trudeau... is it? Why that's about the figure of student jobs just the Liberal summer-jobs program is expected to create! .

I completed the census... and I feel so dirty... so abused! What's the beef man? C'mon, what question(s) could you, a "Rightist", conceivably have concerns in answering? for the earlier "time intrusion" references to spending "a half-hour to complete it"... it shouldn't take anyone that long; notwithstanding, the app provides a convenient "save/complete later" feature. .

is there a problem?... current makeup of the advisory board choosing and presenting candidates for the Senate: chair: Huguette Labelle, former senior public servant, serving as deputy minister at Transport Canada, the Public Service Commission and the Canadian International Development Agency. Adviser to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development's committee on integrity and anti-corruption. Appointed chancellor of University of Ottawa in 1994, a position she held until 2012. Holds honorary degrees from 12 Canadian universities and is a companion — the highest rank — of the Order of Canada. members: Indira Samarasekera, federal member: she served as the president and vice-chancellor of the University of Alberta. Daniel Jutras, federal member: dean of law, professor, Wainwright Chair in Civil Law at the Faculty of Law, McGill University. Murray Segal, provincial member for Ontario: former Ontario deputy attorney general and Ontario deputy minister responsible for Aboriginal Affairs. Dawn Lavell Harvard, provincial member for Ontario: president of the Native Women's Association of Canada. Sylvie Bernier, provincial member for Quebec: Olympic gold medalist, media contributor and "healthy lifestyle ambassador." Yves Lamontagne, provincial member for Quebec: psychiatrist. Susan Lewis: provincial member for Manitoba: worked for over 40 years with the United Way of Winnipeg, including as president from 1985 to 2014. Heather Bishop, provincial member for Manitoba: a musician/singer-songwriter, independent recording artist and entrepreneur..

let's recap: you finally pulled away from your unsubstantiated finger-pointing at that $5.1 million funding cut as it had no bearing on the Ft. Mac wildfire... you didn't acknowledge you were wrong; rather, you simply deflected to the other part of the overall funding cut... the other $10 million dollars. When I ask you to state what perceived impact you believe that other $10 million had in regards the current wildfire, you weasel out - of course you do! asking me for cites is quite lame given my statements were very precise and a googly on those statements would take you to many references. Since I'm responding to you... does this mean you will actually step-up (and not weasel out) and respond to the request you appear to be wildly running away from? Here, just a couple of many available: CBC....... Postmedia Edmonton Journal I await you responding... I await you stating what part of that (other) $10 million cut had any impact on the current wildfire... as you say, "I await your cite(s)". .

and here you go again: let me set the reference table for you... again, per that KPMG audit: given the audit was 2 months short of 2 full years after the Libya involvement, you decide to drop a link that has nothing to do with Libya... or direct costing reflecting upon Libya. Of course you do - that's what you do... you make a statement, don't provide any related/relevant foundation to what's being discussed, and then you drop a link to something else! Well done. but hey, I'll run with that Libya reference of yours: the total military cost to Canada for Libya was $100 million dollars; more precisely, DND put the incremental costs of the mission — costs the military says would not have been incurred if Canadian Forces had not been deployed — at just under $100 million. That's $100 million, all in, all done. Care to advise what part of that cost expenditure you'd like to attribute to your deflection reference to Libya and CF-18 weapons expended during that mission? So that's some figure/amount within that, "just under $100 million" as compared to the KPMG audit reference to "greater than $1 billion". As I said, that's quite the non-budgeted cost never factored/mentioned at all within that original Harper Conservative cost estimate for the F-35... wouldn't you say, hey! .

could there be any more of an example of your bullshyte weasel moves? Here, try again; they're quite simple questions... is there a problem, for you? lets have you be very, very precise here: - are you stating there are no significant F-35 software issues at present? I'm speaking to the broader level of Block software. - are you stating there is significant improvement in the U.S. Marine F-35B FMC... improved from that lowly and pathetic 14% figure? If so: - please advise what that current improved rate is, and when it was realized particularly in relation to the DOT&E declaring it as 14%. - additionally, provide citation to support your statements that the low rate can be attributed to, as you state, "software delays, including F-35B ALIS". .

you've provided nothing to support anything you've stated. You're now backpedaling away from that $5.1 million cut that has no impact... and now you throw out the other $10 million reference without saying word-one about it. Here's a thought: why not shift away from your unsubstantiated finger pointing and state what perceived impact you believe that other $10 million had in regards the current wildfire. Step-up instead of weaseling out! .

you specifically mentioned integration. We are making progress if you're now only attaching cost... and not technical considerations. Let's be clear then: you're acknowledging that there are NO technical issues that would prevent any non-American alternative to the F-35 from using existing CF-18 weapons inventory - yes? as for costs, I note you have yet to acknowledge that KPMG reference I initially put forward in the other thread and just a few posts back here - the one that states it would cost in the order of $1 billion additional dollars to buy required weapons for the F-35... $1 billion that was never mentioned/factored by the previous Harper Conservative government - yes? . not based on what you quoted of mine... that's you making a somewhat self-serving interpretation. . lets have you be very, very precise here: - are you stating there are no significant F-35 software issues at present? I'm speaking to the broader level of Block software. - are you stating there is significant improvement in the U.S. Marine F-35B FMC... improved from that lowly and pathetic 14% figure? If so: - please advise what that current improved rate is, and when it was realized particularly in relation to the DOT&E declaring it as 14%. - additionally, provide citation to support your statements that the low rate can be attributed to, as you state, "software delays, including F-35B ALIS". .

you quoted what I wrote... do you really need to be walked through this sentence: "...the related $5.1 million cut means their contacts only run to August after which an 'as needed' requirement will guide the hiring of planes." is it August yet? . ... the thrust of your pointed finger was the current Notley NDP government. Your linked article addressing intentions of the former Alberta Conservative government states, "The provincial government is expecting to save $2 million by hiring one less air tanker group this year, but that doesn’t mean any of the water-bomber bases in Alberta, like the one west of Lac La Biche, will be left high and dry. Instead, it means aircraft will likely be moving around the province more, depending on where their services are needed." Notwithstanding... with the NDP government change, did that intention, referred to as "planning to hire one less tanker group", actually happen? .

it must be as impressive as that of the group of Conservative MPs with the "draft Rona' move... or as impressive as that of Tony Clement coming out publicly to forcefully remind Rona that she gave a "solemn vow" not to run. .

you know your post had nothing to do with what I stated... and what you quoted of mine! You know! as for your point derail (from my actual post), we've danced this dance before in regards to weapons costs. Why a search just showed me replying to you some time back in another thread where I quoted from that KPMG report that talked of the current CF-18 weapons inventory being shifted over to the (presumptive) F-35s... but that an additional (not budgeted) $1 billion would be required to purchase additional weapons for the F-35. I also recall past discussion around the applicable NATO weapons standards; in that regard, simply as a reference example, this article on the French Dassault Rafale: are you able to clarify your post and speak to representative weapons costs you suggest a non-American option would bring forward? . nice... you're at it again! My post was but a snippet extract of the overall F-35 issues/concerns raised by the U.S. DOT&E. Even as a snippet extract with 4 key points, your reply/link doesn't apply to any of the four... and absolutely ignores the pointed emphasis I put on one of those 4 that speaks to the abysmal FMC rating for the U.S. Marine F-35B. I even chided you over your past hyperbolic fanboy boasting over the fake/phony F-35B IOC and the "squadron replacements" you keep nattering on about. With a FMC rating of 14%... Fully Mission Capable level of only 14% of the existing U.S. Marine F-35B planes, it's clear why you've bypassed that and thrown out yet another of your unrelated "go-fetch" links. .

nice try! That $15 million cut is split across tanker contracts ($5.1 million) and base management... which doesn't include costs for firefighters/equipment (those are funded through general revenue). As I'm aware the same 2 companies that have always provided tanker contracts are still operating to the same level they always have in the past... the related $5.1 million cut means their contacts only run to August after which an 'as needed' requirement will guide the hiring of planes. .

so you're reverting to "contact the NAS" again! And you refuse to directly state the evidence you claim you just posted when you resurrected this thread a short while back. why did you bother... you've added nothing new here other than to confirm, once again, that you can't substantiate your statements that speak to the existence of evidence based scientific findings that support your claims of "God creation". .

no - images are 'hot-linked' (inline linking)... they are not stored on the MLW server; bandwidth considerations reflect upon the servers where images are linked from... not the MLW server. No videos are streamed from the MLW server; again, bandwidth is not an issue on MLW with respect to videos. MLW does have a maximum image size setting; if you had taken the time to test with assorted image sizes you would realize this (I'm guessing max size is ~2700KB)... image presentation on this max size keeps the image sized to that of wrapped text. Images less than max size are always presented left-justified... . a superfluous comment as, again, no images/video are directly stored on MLW. A short while back I cited reference to Canadian judicial rulings that hold copyright is not infringed by inline linking. . grasshopper, try again! .

are you unable to respond directly? Just state your latest claim for the physical evidence of "God creation" - waiting, waiting, waiting.... .

yes - I will accept you are silly... since you want to beat on this; again, my post was 2-fold... you chose to declare its context/focus as singular - and you reinforce your disingenuous self by only quoting a portion of my post. On top of that you declared the context and then proceeded to reply with something that had no bearing on said context - well done! When you fabricate like this... does an Angel lose its wings? I note the fawning with your, "the Donald", reference! . "what's new about yesterday"? Really? Cruz suspended his campaign... I thought you would have known! You know, that attack from Trump was now officially from the presumptive Republican candidate since every other candidate has bailed. I thought you would have known. Yesterday's Trump attack holds that context... as does the Clinton campaign reply to it. I thought you would have known. Oh wait, you acknowledged yesterday as the start of the campaign for the general election... and yet you asked, "what's new about yesterday"! .

yes - you were quite serious in your cowardly attack. I spoke of contributory influence; I specifically stated: on the other hand, you said: "This assumes a causal link between the fire and Climate change"... and I simply asked if you feel emboldened enough to take this to a related thread and support your claim that there are no causal links between forest fires proper and GW/AGW/CC? From that point forward, you're feverishly backpedaling - yes you are! on edit: c'mon, show some grit, show your mettle... but make sure to speak to factors contributing to longer fire seasons and the intensity of respective fires - yes? Alberta's official wildfire season used to be designated as starting April 1st... it's now March 1st - what could it be, what could it be/ .

don't backpedal now! Be loud and proud of the cowardly attacks you threw at me. I didn't expect you to take up the challenge and bring this to an appropriate thread... you sir, you are "all hat and no cattle"! .

do you feel emboldened enough to take this to a related thread and support your claim that there are no causal links between forest fires proper and GW/AGW/CC? . a narrow focus on landfall does not speak to either the intensity or frequency of hurricanes... oceans are... "vast" - go figure! This mealy-mouthed "weather vs. climate" denier fall-back is so convenient for you - yes? And yes, no thinking/knowledgeable person should use the same fall-back if some denier points to a huuuge snow-storm event! Rather, you look broader to event frequency and intensity and impacting conditions on either/both. . take it to a thread... bring it! Sure you can. I trust your 'brother-in-like-arms' MLW member Shady will have his C&P prowess at the ready! .

respectively, as I interpret, this forum software auto-sizes images and as I read, that related admin setting has a default but can be changed. In any case, in MLW "olden times" I can recall images that absolutely misaligned as they were too large - I haven't seen that for some time. In an earlier post I asked if there was a preferred size desired for images (notwithstanding the over-riding auto-size... for too large images)... my question was ignored. in regards to "broken layout" of text, the available <INDENT> tag certainly... breaks that presumed layout. Typically, html based text, as copied, will retain whatever text format/alignments exist... which will similarly... "break layout". your position has been stated/you have the keys, your prerogative. Equally, my personal position and my prerogative, for whatever worth a single member's personal position is, I will not take the time to edit-cleanup text copy from a .pdf file to make it presentable... rather, I will choose instead to not contribute a reply. No worries. .