Shwa

Hey, I have no argument. I was being sarcastic.

Pfft. as IF "science" counts compared with so many opinions. The scientific data shows that more people believe that smallpox could not be transmitted in any way in the mid-18th century, therefore smallpox was not transmitted via infected blankets. See? Science.

This is all because in the 60's way more crime went unreported, especially sexual assaults and domestic abuse, minor assaults and such. Probably 87.6% of all crime in the 1960's went unreported.

An important disctinction indeed. The "agreeable opinion" part. Forget the disagreeable opinion because, you know, it is always meaningless. Right?

That is "it" exactly. Especially the "wilfully" part. And let's not forget to blame "the media" what, with it's liberal bias and all.

But it isn't "proof" haven't you been reading? First of all, those are just letters from one insignficant, lost-in-history Brit to another. Second, just because they wrote about it, doesn't mean it actually happened; like where's the video? Thirdly, even if it did happen, it is scientificially impossible for smallpox to be transmitted through blankets, and even if it were, chances are, that any outbreak of smallpox was likely due to human contact anyways from the siegees to the siegers. And that is competely unavoidable, natural and morally acceptable. Even if the carrier was sent out to meet the siegers, it wasn't their fault that the Indians caught smallpox. Sure, a rudimentary knowledge of the contagious effects of disease in warfare was generally known for centuries prior to the siege at Fort Pitt, but that doesn't mean that they actually used it there.

There are several references to a deliberate burial of the site and the sites beneath: http://www.gobeklitepe.info/

Really? I would condemn the SUN one minute and call it a beacon of the shining truth the next? I hardly think so.

Yep, you got that right Scotty. Very perceptive of you!

LOFL! Fish, meet barrel. Do you have some hard, statisical data to back this statement? Since this statement is an advancement of your first, unproven, statement, I will assume you are trying to imitate a conclusion, rather than actually trying to "prove your beliefs." Are you in possession of any studies, research or hard, statistical data that can support your claim about how "reasonably bright environmentalist" can defend" themselves? So, in other words, the environmentalist "science types" can "drag out" the debate, but their scientific credentials, knowledge, insight, etc. is not of sufficient utility to be important? Botany is a hard science, like all of the natural sciences. Also, you are forgetting that someone can be quite an expert in a limited scientific field, even IF they don't have ANY science degree or were not exposed to hard sciences in "high school." Some of these amatuer scientists are very useful to science. Thomas Edison comes to mind. You may have heard of him? Are you in possession of studies or research that definitively proves that those who dropped high school sciences are incapable of learning them later in life or even understanding the implications of calculated conclusions? Screeches about "enviromentalism" is an even BIGGER "clue." Gawd Bill, seriously man, do you ever read what you post with anything like an objective perspective? Is that even possible with you?

PUH-LEASE...

I agree, there must be some pre-Gobekli Tepe sites out there somewhere that could likely push things back even more. And this site was deliberately buried in sand, almost to preserve it for some reason or to acknowledge that it had 'died' perhaps?

This is a ludicrous statement William, unless you are completely unaware of the our legal system. Judges restrict constitutional rights ever day with sentencing and the levying of bail conditions. Have you not read the Charter? Here is the first thing it says, I have bolded the key part for you. When they are restricted by the reasonable limits prescribed by law. The charges against the two - conspiracy to organize riots and vandalism - determine the rationality of the restrictions. I think for people charged with conspiracy to organize riots and vandalism, restricting them from any public demonstrations is a reasonable limit. The judges aren't "breaking the Constitution by infringing the charter" rather you simply don't understand how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms works. It is perfectly acceptable. The only contention - and the only reason the two are back in court about those bail conditions - is the definition of the word "demonstration." Since they are charged with conspiracy to incite, attending a meeting entitled, "Strengthening Our Resolve: Movement Building and Ongoing Resistance to the G20 Agenda" could be construed as a form of 'demonstration.' At any rate, their Constitutional rights are being upheld since they are being allowed to question the bail restriction.

On what device did she "tweet" from?

This could also apply to people with Tourette Syndrome, the socially retarded, village idiots or someone with a unique combination of social and mental disorders. Even Lictardation, which is likely the most serious afflication of them all. The problem is, all you are capable of doing is saying what's on your mind in repetition, but you are incapable of rational discussion as evidenced by your inability to engage people who question your statements. It appears that all you can do is repeat the same statements over and over and are incapable of developing them into anything meaningful or useful. And looking at the subject matter and how it is presented, I am thinking that you likely suffer from coprolalia, which is a symptom of Tourette's. Here is a link to the Tourette Syndrome Foundation of Canada. You will find resources and contacts to help you overcome your affliction and I wish you well.

Really? You actually think the Detroit Lions will make the playoffs this year in the division they are in? What 9 or 10 games do you think they will win? Lions 2011 Schedule

Wow! That IS interesting. Well, to be honest, I must be somewhat new to the whole issue since I have never heard anyone ever say that "climate change" had never occurred on earth prior to modern times, or something like that. And even the AGW crowd, at least the ones I know, never made such a ludicrous claim. They must not be indoctrinated enough I suppose.

I like the metre of that line. It has a rhythymic quality in time. Some people could goose-step to it.

Because they are essentially stupid?

LOL! Good one!

Al Capone didn't have to pay for hospitals, education or welfare.

I fooled around with some editing and stuff and made a more interesting and likely more truthful paragraph for you. How do you know her "books are there?" Maybe in most of the libraries they aren't and for someone to access a copy they have to use inter-library loan or some other internal TPL system. Handmaid's Tale is telling. I think you would identify with some of the characters.

I was responding to Boges concern that no one had used usage as a defence for closing the libraries. So I gave him the defence. If there are "many little hole -in -the wall libraries" one or two people could make it seem packed. Just sayin. So it isn't REALLY about closing libraries, it is about librarian's salaries. And they are in unions, etc. I see. And they are "non deserving librarians" to boot. Why? Don't they know the dewey decimal system and how to search the card catalogue?

No, I don't know all the facts. But then neither do you since the libraries "seem" to be a block apart and "if" they are underused... So we are on equal footing in a way. So tell me, what does an "underused" library look like? Is there a patron-per-hour metric that you know about? Cause there "seems" to be lots of people complaining "if" their library is targeted for closure.

So we have gone from "vast" to "huge." Based on an election. In a thread discussing a straw poll about selling beer and wine in the corners stores in Ontario. Pretty much. How do you justify taxes? But imagine all that revenue they could jump on. Quebeckers are not suddenly going to stop drinking beer or wine. Their bloated public service is likely due to all the beer they consume. So don't drink and you won't be ripped off. Or find a bootlegger somewhere, they way the real men used to do it back in the day.