Shwa

Awww, such tenderness and sensitivity from Shady. It's about time. Heckuva job Shady. Heckuva job...

Topaz is a guy?

On neither count. I just thought that with all the Harper bashing and you pouting about it, I would create a nice, pleasant Jim Flaherty thread, free from the usual bashing and gnashing that goes on around here. A nice respite thread for you so you are free to express pleasantries about Jim Flaherty, Prime Minister Harper and the rest of those hard working and forward thinking Conservative Party of Canada members. You aren't taking this the wrong way are you?

But of course I am, in the same way you are free to clumsily avoid facts. But whether I believe the Moon is made of green cheese or billions of years old rock has nothing to do with the part when I pointed out that the alleged smallpox blankets had to travel only a few meteres (in a few minutes) according to historical documentation whereas you allege that the blankets would have to "...go overland for many miles/days..." I fully agree with you that if the blankets had to travel "overland for many/miles days" that the effectiveness of using smallpox infected blankets would be drastically reduced, but the incident in question - the siege at Fort Pitt where this tactic was discussed - had the Native Americans surrounding the fort and were within minutes of receiving an infected blanket, wet scabs and all, directly from a victim's sickbed inside the sieged fort.

Ohhhhh. I see what you mean. No, I created the "The Jim-Flaherty-Does-Something-Worth-Mentioning Thread" as a gift per your comment in the other thread. I added the "non-threatening, non-bashing" in response to the tonality of your comment in the other thread. I mean, I did not want to create this thread and then have people come on here - you know, those damned lefties and their ilk - and start being threatening or bashing Jim or even Steve as they often do, by association. So far it has worked out pretty good dontchya think?

Read the title of the thread and note the word "deliberately." I think that is part of the question that is being established. Because there was an "ocean" of indeliberate acts does not mean there were no deliberate acts at all. So even a few isolated acts is informative since it reveals intent at a high level of the chain of command.

Except in the case of the siege of Fort Pitt in which the Native Americans in question were a few yards away and there were active cases of smallpox within the fort.

It's not only priceless it's disgusting!!!

No, you are getting confused and it is coming out in your cheapening of language. A correct statement would read: "I just want them to hold their parades on their own f'ing dime." Your wants are much different from their needs.

Then explain how the seizure would be arbitrary if they hadn't actually broken the law? It wouldn't since the word arbitrary does not include anything notion of compensation whatsoever. On the one hand, you have the authority as "reasonable" and non-arbitrary in one instance while having the same authority as arbitrary and unreasonable in another instance. That is a contradiction.

Absolutly since she would need to be cleared of not being the person downloading child pornography wouldn't she? If she has a problem with it, there are already mechanisms in place to deal with her complaints or requests for compensation. Since you say the seizure of the computer is reasonable and since there are mechanisms in place to address compensation issues, including Article 17 of the UDHR in the CCRF is not required. Trust me, if there is child pornography on her computer, she is a suspect.

Because if you were suspected of breaking the law with a computer, why on earth would the police supply you with another one as compensation? Once you have been cleared you might have a point. If you wanted compensation for the time between the seizure and the time you were cleared, you can take them to court or some other legal avenue. But regardless, them seizing your computer is not arbitrary and within their "right." Do you think if a person is pulled over for DUI and they police seize their car, that the police should supply that person another until their DUI case is sorted out?

No, you are reaching since the cited articles say nothing about compensation at all. The word arbitrary says nothing about compensation. Since you agree that the seizure of your friend's computer was "reasonable" that is all that is required to show - according to you - that the authority to seize the computer was not arbitrary. Now you would ask that same authority to declare itself "arbitrary" because it didn't agree to compensate or 'provide a good reason not to.' That is a reach indeed.

It is all beside the point and doesn't contribute to your argument. The law already provides legal recourse for compensation.

And yet the Europeans of the day were familiar with this theory of infected blankets. If blankets were a prized commodity among the Native Americans, then it wouldn't be a stretch to think that they might accept them as gifts unaware that such blankets came directly off recently deceased victims of smallpox. But that is not the point. The point of the letters proves a deliberation of sorts, hence the title of this thread. The probability of infection from blankets is low, but not entirely impossible and even they Brits back in the day were aware of this and at least considered using them as a deliberate attempt to destroy.

No, you are reaching. The articles you cite say nothing about "compensation" at all and the word "arbitary" has nothing to do with compensation. That much is clear. In fact, using your antonym list, even you agree that the seizure of her computer was "reasonable." All you are referring to now is a matter of time factors. For example, one sentence that is sometimes passed by a court is to restrict the use of computers as part of the sentencing. In the case of your friend, if the warrant was based on the suspicion that she was using her computer for, say, terrorism, then it wouldn't really make any sense to take her computer away and give her another in the meantime now would it? That wouldn't be "reasonable."

But this: Says absolutely nothing about "compensation." So your friend's computer example is invalid. You even say that the siezure of the computer was "reasonable."

No, in this thread which, to most normal English speakers, I would have thought was fairly explicity. However, knowing your track record, you are excused for your misunderstanding of clear and plain language.

Oh yes you did: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=19187

No, it isn't necessary. As already pointed out, everyone already has the right to own property through common law. Secondly, there are very few instances where anyone is arbitarily deprived of their property and when they are, there is legal recourse. As for your friend's computer, if there was a warrant, it wasn't an arbitrary deprivation since it was likely done all nice and legal like. Gaining a warrant requires proof of it's requirement and that proof has narrow grounds in which it is valid. Similarly, expropriation of land for public purposes also requires a systemic process to be enacted that requires proof of the need. And again, if there is a problem with the expropriation there is legal recourse.

No, but the Grey Cup is. You are probably thinking I meant Vanier Cup? The Grey Cup is a national party, with over 6 million viewers. That's a lot of beer sales! We lost an NHL season? Puh-lease, the loss of the NFL has a titch more significance than the loss of the NHL season. Whenever that happened I mean. However, losing an NFL season will impact me greatly since I highly anticipate the Pack repeating this season.

You are making sweeping generalizations about a diverse group of people cybercoma. Can you not see that this very attitude is at the heart of the problem in the first place - back then as it is now? But... believe what you wish.

Yeah I read somewhere that they were particularly interested in 'scabby' blankets and clothe. At any rate, even though they didn't have the technical details of smallpox transmission, they likely were acting on some sort of observation or common knowledge of the times. WHO - Smallpox: I would imagine that the affects of smallpox on the native populations were well known and the hope was that even if one person got it, once it spread, it would have had the desired affect.

I think the problem stems from the seed ideas of morality; we have to weed our way through the legislation and hash out a compromise before the whole thing goes to pot. I find the current attitudes somewhat dooby-us... Hey Molly, you're not a nyarc are you?

It would because of the Grey Cup.