Shwa

Was this story on The Mercer Report too? I just saw it on CityTV News at 6 tonight. Mercer must have a mole on the TDSB!

Oleg, what do you mean by this? Could you explain please?

Yep I see the same thing. And sadly the federal government is going this way too. Now we have social policy designed by MBA's who are more interested in their personal increase than they are in services to the public. And there is a trickle down effect to front line staff as well. Pretty soon the federal bureaucracy will resemble the Bell/Rogers 'gotchya!' model.

Wow, they do go on and on don't they? The Internet's equivalent to righteous barking. They sound like creationists to me because they "win" without having fought a lick; call it a "debate" but postulate nothing; and lack the skills and intellectual maturity to proceed with careful scientific enquiry. Creationists have a simple telltale trait: they call you a fool then demand you answer a question. Did you notice that I caught (He licked the)ToadBrother at it? When I pointed it out, he/she called it "obfuscation" and completely ignored the irony of the point. Heck. I don't even think he/she even got the point in the first place! Classic example of the kind of "debating" tactics the creationists use. The only thing you're going to get here C.R is more shrilly barking.

Toronto District School Board has announced they are considering yet another "centric" school catering to the needs of a "small" minority at the expense of the "big" majority once again. And this minority doesn't even pay taxes, can barely read let along speak English and cost the taxpayers millions every year!! My initial - almost automatic - response to this proposal is one of offence. It seems to me a beautiful example of some state-sanctioned mini-culturalism that has gone madly awry. When will this madness end? Yes, it is true, this new "centric" school will be based at Thorncliffe Park Elementary on Eglinton and will be a school that is kindergarten-centric - you know the snot nosed little JK & SK's. TDSB Reportedly Considering All-Kindergarten School So now, instead of learning good old fashioned "Canadian" values, they are going to teach them about all the different colours and no doubt use the dubious, unscientific "blocks" method. Not to mention how much learning time will be lost because the education system has to adapt to the concept of "naptime" and "snacks." These tot-folk are different from us and we'll have to pick up th tab for their insolence, extra juice box waste disposal and god forbid: the odd pee-pants. What's next? We start making schools specifically for Grade One through Eight? Then people will start demanding schools for teenagers only! When will this outrage end? I think we should stand up and demand an accounting NOW for this outrageous tot-centric school idea. We do this now or one day - ONE DAY SOON - all of our faces will be "washed in gravy."

Oh I see your point for sure. I just felt it was more honest to provide a little insight so that he could move on because with the three times previous he simply wasn't taking the clue. I am not sure if that is about dogmatic denials, douchebaggery or plain old slow-wittedness, but I suspect the latter.

OK ToadBrother, here is your dilemma: why ask a question when you are convinced that not only will the respondant not be able to comprehend an answer, but he will likely not even understand the question in the first place? You have clearly stated - and this has been amply backed up by GH & Morris - that I "have no idea how science works" and that, further still, I "have no idea how historical studies work?" And then, in an even curiouser turn, you wish to avoid "pointless back-and-forths" with me. Don't you find this whole line of questioning in your post below a bit odd considering? Are you able to step back from your "position" and examine your dilemma from a point of view that is as objective as possible? Here is the link to the wiki on Structural Anthroplogy from which I take the following quote from Claude Levi-Strauss: Meanings of "etic" and "emic" Now, postmodern objections aside, structural analysis is useful to reveal evidence in an enquiry into aspects of the cultures we are studying. It will not provide an end, but it may provide a means. And any attempt at analysing any cultural aspects within a coherent and objective framework is a worthy start. So I can tell you, I have no stake or interest in the outcomes of any enquiry into the fragments of a culture whether that is Sumerian, early European or modern Inuit. I am not afraid of the conclusions because I do not know what the conclusions may be outside of any hypothesis I may devise. And besides, who am I to judge? So my dilemma is this: why bother asking questions when the respondent is not likely to comprehend an answer and might not understand the question in the first place? Do you understand where I am coming from? 3 times already I have used the phrase 'moving on' and for some reason you want to keep at it even though you have come to the conclusion that I have "no idea" about science or historical analysis. And 3 times I have given you the benefit of the doubt. Eventually we both must conclude that some arbitrary line has to be drawn as to the usefulness of continuing the enquiry along these lines and, since I am a baseball fan, I say three strikes and you are out. Do you understand how I have responded to my dilemma now?

Bingo. You win the round. Or, as Claude Levi-Strauss would say, "The scientist is not a person who gives the right answers, he is one who asks the right questions." Pfff, who is this Levi-Strauss guy anyways? It is spectacular how far these two will leap to break the beaker before the burner is lit. But keep them away from the specimen jars!

You are kidding me right? You are confusing vernacular with legalese, which MH and I have already pointed out. If the police see evidence of a motive, they are going to investigate it - it is "in" their hands to investigate that - and thus they will "treat" it as such. Now, the media might report it as 'hate crime' but the police would treat it as whatever applicable section of the Criminal Code they need to lay charges. Because of this: The police, the news and "people" go around qualifying crime all the time. Even "hate crimes" as evidenced by the subsequent links I have supplied you. I never said that. I said that it gets in the "news reportage" and is often attributed to police sources. Nope. They speculated on the motive as per the actual quote. You deny the police discuss motives in the news, I supplied contrary information. Nope again. I think the black-on-white/mulatto lesbian article I supplied shows that the news reported one of the victims saying that the motive was because she was a lesbian. The news didn't have to report that. This was a black man afterall. They didn't have to print that the lesbians wanted "hate crime" charges because they were lesbian, even though the perpetrator was a black man. The article passed from the writer, through an editor (or editorial board) and into print. It was a choice. Even though the man charged with the assault was black. So why did the news make that choice. Any idea?

I dunno, I might be looking in the wrong place. Others have messaged me fine and currently the 'Signed in as' menu reads "Messenger (0 New)" Should I be looking somewhere else?

Wow! A lengthy point-by-point "rebuttal" with an expert prognosis at the end! I bet that is the very first time such a thing has ever happened on the Internet. Quick, call the Internet guys they'll surely want to know! Nope, the joke is still on you bud and you haven't proved otherwise. You are still madly in love with your own expertise and, well, the gushing is starting to show. Get a room!

That would be a fine topic to chew on!

The issue is not who decides to to lay what charges, it is about what is reported in the news - you say so yourself: In the example I provided it clearly says "Peel Regional Police said." It doesn't say anything about the Crown, lawyers or who laid what charges or anything of that nature for these two suspects. So the "news reportage" clearly states that the police are looking for men wanted for first degree murder. They could have said they were looking for two suspects of interest, two witnesses, but they didn't. In the recent example I provided, your statement here is clearly wrong or simply insufficiently detailed. If you would like to revise your position or consult a lawyer on that, please feel free. Ah, so if you had actually read the article, you would have seen this: "Kalogerakis was killed in his Earth Star Trail home, near Dixie Rd. and Bovaird Dr. E. at about 1 a.m., during what investigators called a targeted home invasion." The suspects are being sought for murder, not targeting home invasion. A man was killed. The police purely speculate that it is a targeted home invasion. It is reported in the news. Kalogerakis was killed. Why? Because he was the victim of a targeted home invasion. Ah, so you want motive. For that you have to go to the first story of this crime: Fatal Brampton home invasion was 'targeted' So the Homice Inspector of the Peel Regional Police gives you robbery as the motive and, since it hasn't been proven in court, it must be speculative. So clearly, with this recent eexample police do give reasons why a crime took place. So kimmy, do you now stand corrected or not?

In Quebec during the 80's they had cheques for a different kind of "stimulus." You got paid for making more babies through large tax breaks.

Whoa, that is a pretty bold statement there Mr Super Genius. How would you like to prove that? Can't? Didn't think so. But I'm not surprised. So really all you are doing is the equivalent of running off at the mouth, textual diarrhea if you will. You sound like some phony evangelist, always making statements that he can't prove, but proselytizing anyways. Because somewhere, some day, someone will be needy enough to join the congregation. Not me thanks!

Ah how the righteous do congregate don't they? It's the same all over on any side.

LOFL! You made that determination by the small little beginning I have made? I haven't even finished a simple probability table and already you are drawing grand conclusions and comparing me to Von Daniken! That is SO funny. You just made my day!!! OMG here is another super genius: Tell me Mr. Super Genius, what was my original hypothesis? No looking back, just off the top of your head. Do you even know? No? I didn't think so. Otherwise you would't have made such a simpleton mistake. You have to do better than Platos Cave and Mr Super Genius, come off it. The jokes on you GH because here is where I 'circle' back and illustrate my original hypothesis: But I modified it slightly: The problem is, you are so enamoured with your own lofty bias and righteous opinion, you are powerless to even attempt to prove it scientifically. It was Platos Cave that brought up Lazarus and the lepers, I was going to use the the blind man and the lame man. But no matter I think I have accurately made my point. So... for the third time... moving on now...

"The story is not accurate." Good grief, we want to get away from leaps of faith here! And besides, accuracy of the story is not in question nor are the beliefs of those that would say it is or isn't.

Here, chew on this for a bit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_mythology So a scientist would say that Lazarus was not dead is that your final answer? I dunno. I think a real scientist would say that the probability of Lazarus being dead was likely very low. Very, very low. But probabilities are not going to prove "the story" false, but that is not our concern when we want to examine it. We need to presume it is true to the reporter. (I am not concerned with subsequent interpretations by religious dogmatists or wayward Jesus freaks.) So we can look at this little bit of data within a probability table: (MLW doesn't do HTML tables) 1 - Lazarus was dead, but did not decay. (no smell) 2 - Lazarus was dead, but did decay. (smells) 3 - Lazarus was dead, but decayed some. (some smell) 4 - Lazarus was not dead, but unconcious but awoke on the call out. (i.e. coma or some other affliction) 5 - Lazarus was not dead, but gained conciousness prior to the call out. 6 - Lazarus was not dead, but was concious all along. Are there any other possibilities? Now about that smell. Suppose there was data loss. That may affect the probabilities above. If there was smell, and it disapated (or not) it would give more credence to the truth that Lazarus was dead and was actually resurrected. But there is no mention of any smell after the raising. One would think that would be a very significant fact that would not be subject to random data loss through forgetting since oral peoples tend to have prodigious memories. And deliberately leaving it out would actually harm the authenticity of the act of resurrection. So because there is no smell mentioned, we would rank #2 & #3 as a lower probability than #1. Do you follow so far?

What you need to do my friend is empty yourself of any preconceived ideas of the Bible, Jesus Christ, the controversy between science and religion, and whatever. Try and empty out all that bias and opinion. Then stop and ask yourself - in all the resources available to science and scientific thought is it possible to examine the Bible or parts of it with a scientific outlook? It sure is. It is easy. Hint: use anthropology. Let me ask you a simple question of the story fragment at hand. GhostHacked, if you are reading this, you can answer too. Here's an idea: The reporter says that Lazurus was dead. We know that they had a good idea about what death is because one of the characters says that Lazarus will smell after being dead for four days. However, after being called, Lazarus comes out of the cave in his funerary clothes. Is there any report of the smell? If not, what can we scientifically conclude from this aspect of the report? Don't jump ahead to the resurrection or Jesus' ability to perform miracles or your personal disdain for the church or some website with simpleton graphics. Just stick to the basic fact of what data we can gather from this tiny piece of the report.

That's right. Science brings to light new evidence. That is why a scientific enquiry into this little cultural fragment is interesting. OK, that being so, this can be tested: stick your tongue is a live light socket and tell me if the shock you feel is "provisional." I know what you are saying, but I have to ask, "provisional" according to whom? Science doesn't just sit and postulate - it discovers. Otherwise we would still be cooking our toast on candles and philosophizing about it all. Interestingly enough, the etymology of science is from the Latin word for 'knowledge.' Merriam Webster defines science as 1) the state of knowing; 2) systemized knowledge and 3) knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws Perhaps you meant to say 'general' instead of 'provisional?'

Kimmy, just so we are clear here: S - "Are you talking about news reporting on crimes or on the crime detection methods police use?" K - "I'm talking about news reportage..." K2 - "I don't think the police ever discuss whether they consider a particular homicide to be first degree murder or manslaughter." S2 - "Gabriel McKoy, 17, and 36-year-old Daniel Colacito are wanted for first-degree murder, Peel region police said." K3 "As far as I know, they don't often offer up pure speculation as to why." S3 - "during what investigators called a targeted home invasion." Just trying to clarify whether or not you agree that it is often reported in the news that the police qualify crimes according to type and why. This recent example makes it pretty clear that they do. As for S3, the investigators are calling it a 'targetted home invasion' the Crown isn't. That aspect has been proven in court yet. The idea of a targetted home invasion is speculation right there. So do you stand corrected or not? "Why is the media discussing the possibility?" I think they are discussing it because one of the lawyers brought it up in the news report.

No, I was referencing your out-of-date attitude towards Native people and how you assign stereotypes to those folks. Hardly helpful and more informative about you than any "warriors." Nope. It works for both Six Nations and Caledonia because the issue is all but over with. The "warriors" achieved their objective and both communities can get back to normalizing their relationship. The law I speak of has been well documented by others in previous messages.

A recent example from Toronto: Police seek two more suspects in home invasion slaying Emphasis is mine. From the same story as above: The police do this sort of thing all the time and many times for their own investigative purposes. If they can release information that will influence the perptrators, they will. Agreed, the newspaper decides what copy is going to be published, but let's agree here that the police have a heck of a lot influence on what that copy will look like and it is in the newspaper's best interests to co-operate with the police. I recently went back to a local story about a black man that assaulted a couple of lesbian woman while all three were waiting for their children to be released from school. You might find this interesting how the story played in the local newspaper which belongs to the TorStar group of newspapers (Toronto Star) Man charged in schoolyard assault a victim: Lawyer No hate crime charges in connection with attack on lesbian couple Man charged in attack on couple back in court Jan. 22 An interesting quote from the last story: So the police investigate the nature and severity of the crime and make recommendations to the Crown as to what charge should be laid. That is their job. The Crown ultimately decides which charge to lay and prosecute, but the investigation of the crime most often falls completely within the purview of the police service and that includes any hate crimes. BTW - the case is in the trial stage, but has been put off until January.

More noble-savage-ism. Fact is, they achieved their objective using tried and true methods and the community is better off for it. The rule of thumb here is to negotiate as per the law. More ignorant-savage-ism. Provide the MacKenzie Institute link that provides the counterpoint to that article and we will see how balanced the MacKenzie Institute really is when it comes to Native issues. Can't find one? I didn't think you would.