Shwa

Well Tim, a post like this could be seen as a win-win for both you and Shimkus right?

I am talking honest science here. If he was a lunatic, the seriousness should be directed towards getting him some help. But there was "support" for the claim. The artefacts could also be human made, since they were examined by a team of archaeologists with similar education as your kid. The refutation as definitive evidence comes from geology, not archaeology. For example, you can be digging away, find a fluted Clovis point and nothing more and determine that it is human in origin. Oh, I am not too worried about people making definitive claims based upon specious evidence are you? Notwithstanding that some of those claims might be used as input and direction for Indian policy and the person making the claim might be a well-known archaeologist. As long as we know better, everything should be okay...

I am not sure I am diggin the logic though: Climate problems exist. God will take of it. No problem.

Of course you take him seriously. How do you expect to refute someone if you are simply dismissive because a claim doesn't fit your particular model? Arrogance doesn't do science any good. Now, I think crazier claims are likely easier to refute - you might even have some fun with it - but complex claim with arrays of evidence deserve some attention. Grimshaw site in Alberta is a good example of all of the above. Lithic artefacts found in sand that indicates evidence of pre-glacial occupation of that area, setting the human habitation dates back by 20k years or more. That is how new archaeology is becoming more multi-disciplined these days, because people are taking these claims seriously. In the case of Grimshaw, there is no evidence that the lithics were created by humans since they could have been created by glaciation or some other geological effect. There is no other context to the artefacts that places humans near them. But I am sure there are more than a few looking for context. There always is...

Cool link btw... So basically Topper is what? Under consideration or has it been completely dismissed forever? It seems to me that this article opens the door for the possibility of Topper meeting some sort of standard, the standard changing or the further discovery of other much older sites than the known "definitive dates" as it were. What is really interesting is that Topper - and any other honest scientific claim for sites older than the Clovis horizon - challenges new archaeology to dig deeper and go beyond the bounds of the establishment view. Nothing wrong with that, is there? The interesting thing about the first Clovis discovery is that before there was any defintive corroborating evidence it too was just a theory and since the occupation dates keep getting pushed back.

No way! Really?? God will save us from climate change: U.S. Representative Well it's a damned good thing this Republican got in, now isn't it? Good thing it wasn't some crazy person.

To counteract the conveniently fantastical memory you have.

Me too! We've gone from sports to real life to a discussion of psychology (vis a vis "selective memory") all because of some gutless and cowardly - and un-Canadian - acts that are allowable by the rules in MMA and that overshadow the delicate art of "grappling."

The Toronto Rock of the National Lacrosse League made the league finals last year, which makes Peter Gross a moron.

It sure does Argus. For instance, I like to hold the righteous to their own standards, you know, to see how well their righteousness stands up to scrutiny. In your case, not so much. You are incapable of even scrutinizing your own righteousness. That is far worse than some dusty old Gramma standing up for her rights. Between the two of you, one has guts. And it ain't you.

Seriously Argus, a practiced thickness. Perhaps I am being too unkind, are you borderline autistic by chance? Are you talking about a Rwanda-like situation now? Is that what you are getting out of this? I thought CR was totally joking but I see he wasn't. Good Gawd.

Of course, this also appies to the police as noted in this series of stories from the Toronto Star.

Hayden White, for the purposes of his Metahistory and tropological theory of historical narrative, defined conservatism as standing for functional gradualizations that are socially congruent while liberalism stands for functional adjustments that are relatively congruent. So it doesn't matter who can claim historical authorship of this or that social phenomenon; allowing that sort of piecemeal parcelling of social phenomena leaves the conservatives firmly in charge of the army and police. In other words, conservatives tend towards careful, gradual changes in society that are in keeping with the perception of what the majority of society wants, while liberalism tends to make quick, sometimes large adjustments to social institutions despite what society may or may not want. So even though individualism might have come from the ideas of classic Liberalism, modern conservatives can claim that individualism is being 'adjusted' in unhealthy or unpredictable ways that are not good. They aren't being conservative for the sake of Thomas Hobbes, they are being conservative about their own society. (Same with liberals and their modern liberal ideas) That being said, we are all - by and large - liberals and centrists to a great degree. Despite his cynicism, guys like Pliny - and even our banned friend GrainFedPrairieBoy - often provide contrasts to our centrist ideas that can expose flaws, misunderstandings and even provide the most ardent conservatives with a case for adjustment or the most ardent liberal with a case for graduation. BTW - I have never met a conservative worthy of the name that is static or simply wishing for the stand pat status quo. Conservatives have, by definition, an attitude towards growth and prosperity as valid as any other. Having said that, I find some of the modern CPC "conservatives" to be more radical since they preach, as White would define, a radicalism that stands for reconstruction of institutions along with a transcendent idea of change. I just don't think that sort of radicalism is worthwhile in this country, in this day and age.

Quite the opposite. Who do you think the newcomers learn the language from? The Fraser Institute?

Yes, I know you did. But there isn't anything in the Constitution that prevents First Nations from taking the position they are sovereign either.

You could, sure: http://dinehere.ca/r/toronto/janefinch Looks like you can get some patties, some stir fry & noodles, pitas, fried chicken, even McDicks if you are so inclined. Heck the Robert Restaurant is Peruvian. Now if you are worried about getting shot, the hospital is right there.

Megalodong is not extinct, just retired. And doing the odd TV show now and then.

Really? Is that how you see my "tactic" is to show how violent conflicts lead to positive social change? Oh right, no, it's about "white people" and "brown people." I bet you didn't even click those links did you? Man 'o man Argus, you really can be thick you know that? Not just ordinary thickness, but practised, of course.

Yes and now look at the consequences, the issue is being dealt with at the negotiation table. Wha....? I hardly think so. Not as long as the cheap smokes are on one side and the Timmies on the other. Do the math. Plus, there is always Hagarsville... No, Rage Against the Machine sang it best - pick any song you like. Spoken like a true cowboy. No doubt a treatise developed at the local country bar on a Saturday night. Yee haw.

But the fact of the matter is that your credibility and support are useless and always has been. That you come into this game, this later, indicates you are a fourth stringer, nothing more. What really detracts from the "Native and their cause" is the righteous, expounding upon the law, after the fact. Not only is it cheap, but rather gutless too. Well, they aren't my tactics for one, and for two, talk is cheap. See above. Probably because they have taken a couple of basic Canadian history courses. Well, I already asked you: where were you 10 years ago, long before the armed occupation?

Oh, don't sweat the context, here is all you need to know: (and also very un-Canadian) The rest is all just great fun! But beware, you will have the Police, the CF and knife wielding bandits sic'd on you if you agree.

I would indeed because I would be wearing carbon steel chain mail, carrying several small powerful sidearms and I would be riding a hungry polar bear. I mean in a cascading fantasy, anything can happen right?

Not really the Liberals fault, but Mike Ignatieff. It is Ignatieff after all...

No, there are all kinds of acceptable hooliganism and lawbreaking. The Kinmel Park Riots were one, the Winnipeg General Strike was another.