Tawasakm

How is putting an emphasis on protected sex eliminating any responsibility to a carrier? This doesn't make sense. Asking people to reduce and hopefully eliminate the risk of transmission is asking people to become responsible. If a carrier became infected through a lack of personal responsibility then he is surely ignoring the message - not being irresponsible because of it... I walk around my city with hand which may be clenched into fists attached to my arms. I can beat someone to death using my fists. Or making use of my handy opposable thumbs I could grip a long stick and, through the principle of leverage, apply even more force - perhaps even causing splatter. Of course I don't think I should be removed from the streets because of this. My hands are not inherently lethal but only potentially which depends on my own decisions on how to use them and other factors. Somebody who has HIV is not inherently lethal but only potentially - again through decision making and some other factors. In my view it is ridiculous to use a 'loaded gun' argument here. Are you serious or are you trolling I ask myself.

Thelonius, I have reported this to Greg. I am waiting to find out if the offending post came from my IP address. Let this be a lesson to everyone (if it IS my IP). I set my browser to remember my password because I live alone. If this came from my IP then one of about 15 people made the post (thats how many people were here at that time). Either way I am furious that this happened. More then I can say. And, again, I am horribly dissapointed that you think I would post such drivel - for that is what it is. It does tell me that my posts to date must not have meant that much if people can believe I would espouse such meaningless filth. In any event (in case it did come from my comp) I apologise for the post which came under my name. Apologies, Murray Sharpe

In point of fact I didn't write that. I am endeavouring to find out what happened and am immensely dissapointed you believe that is my style. It had been my intention to only read and not contribute further written content. Your apparent evaluation of my contribution to date only reinforces this desire.

Go suck a fuck you retarded Canadian poofs

I gave this some time... Your commentary is so ignorant that I better not comment. Bali is so MUCH like Egypt. They are so similar they are no different... So many posts I have read here decry the ignorance of people grouping different cultures into a 'monolithithic' identity. This (from someone who no doubt sympathises with the previous people) just takes the cake. I really had better not get started on this. Learn some things about Bali and Indonesia Pocket Rocket.

Link to articles on lates Bali attacks. I realise many posters here do not seem to realise a world exists outside of immediate North American interests but perhaps I can draw some comments on this.

It behooves a great leader to be capable of getting the sh*t out of the system. Clearly Kimmy is clued in on many levels.

A thoughtful reply Eureka and thankyou. Whether or not the theory is being advocated by religious fundamentalists or others does not, in my view, really alter the merits of its case. Either it has the requisite evidence or it does not. This is a point I often encounter - most often, in my experience, from religious people. Rationally I find it somewhat weak that a person of faith would criticise perceived faith. I do not think you are approaching the issue from that perspective, however, rather I believe you to be looking at a possible flaw in the approach to science. First of all I question your assertion that we place faith in science. If it was faith then science would stagnate since we would not question. Certainly it would not be 'turned on its head'. What many lament as 'blind faith' in the scientific method I regard to be instead a consistent and logical understanding, and acceptance, of a proven methodology. The very fact that scientific theories are disprovable with the gaining of new information (and the fact that new information is constantly being sought) removes all of the red lights which 'faith' raise for me. Science is for those with their eyes open who will question and look at evidence - the antithesis of faith. I believe that the concensus has been that it may well have a place in the education system but not in the science classroom In it is current format it is incompatible because, as has been explained, it is not a proper scientific theory and does not have any empirical evidence. I personally find this to be an absolutely astonishing comment. You find the idea that scientific theories must have empirical evidence before being taught to students to be 'old and tired'? I hardly know where to start with this one... In fact it is probably better for me not to. I will restrict myself to saying that empirical evidence is an essential part of scientific research etc. Without 'tired and old empirical evidence' there is no science. And there are many ways to find 'answers' to the things that we will never know. It is also true that science does not provide answers to many questions. That doesn't mean that something else should be shoved into the gaps just to make it complete. If science does not have the answer to a question then all that can be taught in a science classroom is that 'science currently has no answer to this question'. That could be expanded upon as students look at various ways science may have attempted and failed to answer the question. It doesn't mean that I can tell them the world was created by the Horrible Farting Double Headed Thunder Lizard from Galaxy Five. If there is no evidence then it has no place in a class room where you are teaching (or should be) the basics of science, scientific research and the scientific method. Any decent education system covers more areas then science and, in my opinion, the theory of intelligent design belongs somewhere else in the system - if it belongs anywhere.

I believe that you are missing the point Eureka. The debate is not over whether intelligent design is a 'possibility'. It is, rather, over whether or not it is appropriate to teach Intelligent Design as a valid scientific theory in school classrooms. Those who are being 'dogmatic' and 'closed minded' are not dismissing religion but are dismissing religion as science. There are comprehensive arguments in this thread demonstrating how this theory does not meet the necessary requirements to be taught as science. That is not being closed minded - that is merely demonstrating an understanding of the scientific method. Anything that is not science does not belong in the science classroom. There is a scope outside of that classroom to explore such things and that, to my mind, is the appropriate venue.

The Japanese attempted to invade Australia. They never managed to land troops on our soil although they did a pretty fair job of bombing Darwin. Australia, as well as other nations, owes a debt of grattitude to the US for its assistance against Japanese aggression.

Largish, bald and made big by Oprah. Dave Letterman seems to be a fan of his too.

My Dad once sold me a car for $1. I think we actually added five cents to make the figure look more interesting. I cannot for the life of me understand why there would be an impediment to such a thing in Canada. In any event it seems clear (to me at least) that secular law should 'trump' religious law in any sensible legal system. If anybody can throw any reasons at me why this should not be so then it would be fun debating it.

Incidentally I did not vote in the poll since I don't think it is entirely fair to Greg. Obviously I have some 'issues' with things here but I think we can all see that Greg has done his best to be a fair moderator and to do a good job - even if I don't agree with all his decisions.

Eureka, In point of fact I was asking that those who make statements of fact be ready to back them up. I don't know how many times I said that opinion and deductive reasoning are completely valid arguments. My problem was always in dressing those things up as facts and then refusing to back up that assertion. Sorry for the disappointment - which, by the way, runs both ways. Mirror, I understand your point of view. When I joined this forum I was attracted by the quality of debate and it is something that is worth preserving. However Greg is only one person and probably has many other committments. I see that he raised the possibility earlier of getting some help with the moderation. This is an avenue that may well be worth exploring although that it appears his idea was shot down. This forum could be the best or one of the best around. That always take special effort to maintain. While it is worth it I don't know it can be expected that one person can do this. Alot of it, of course, must come from posters being mature enough to self regulate but it is a fantasy to think that everyone who comes here will do that. Moderation is necessary to maintain quality. I think Greg has, over all, been a very good moderator. After all this forum generally continues to be of good quality. If I had any helpful suggestion to make it would be that he might look to find some help. There may be teething problems but, more then likely, it would just make things smoother and faster. I can't see how this forum needs continuing stereotyping fuelling 'debate'. Such abbreviations as 'LLL' are symptomatic of 'ranting' not 'debating'. There are intelligent posters here who will respond thoughtfully but I can observe the quality of their posts being affected too. After a while you can see things like 'STFU' sneaking in. The quality is being lost. I don't believe that it hurts to insist on the quality of 'respect' being required from posters in their arguments. Eureka said this: I would say that those political ideas could be introduced without any of the stereotyping, insults etc that accompany them and would, in fact, be far more powerful without them. Most importantly debate is more easily encouraged without all that nonsense. More ideas would be exchanged and explored and more insights gained with a more mature debating style. Combativeness does not enhance discussion. Well thats my two cents.

From the left outed: From "The ugly hate filled left" (and the name says it all)" Well I could keep going but I am sure everyone knows what has been going on in the discussions here lately. I was 'reading up' prior to joining in again but things seem so inflamed here that I have to wonder if it is worth it.

I'm glad that my incredible good looks, combined with my obviously aesthetic and refined bearing, have met with such universal approval. Seriously though, Kimmy, you are great with one liners.

And done. Since I've been told its the lamest photo of me ever taken.

Its 0.05 in Western Australia. It used to be 0.08 but that was deemed to be too high.

Actually no. We vote for our senate. The Canadian way seems incomprehensible to me. Ten points to Kimmy. Voting is compulsory in Australia.

In my home city we are required by law to use a hands free kit while using a mobile (what we call a cell phone) in a vehicle while driving. Most of the time this consists of a unit which you plug into the mobile consisting of a long black wire, a small microphone with a clip and one headphone piece. You simply plug the headphone into your ear and clip the microphone onto your lapel or shirt collar (which holds the microphone somewhere where it is likely to catch your voice) and start talking. It means both of your hands are free at all times. In my experience its no different then talking to a passenger. The voice is even coming from the same side. It is also my experience that if after answering the phone you actually tell the other person that you are driving then there will be an acceptance of pauses. Maybe thats just a cultural difference but I wouldn't have thought Canadians would have reacted any differently.

Dear Hugo, Thank you very kindly for your reply. It is edifying to encounter a poster who is willing to expand on his position and provide details. I appreciate this very much. Tawasakm

Hugo this interests me: Could you please provide a bit more detail?

Rubbish! It was me.

I check back in from time to time to see whats been happening here. Plenty as it turns out. I was curious too 'I miss Trudeau' so I searched through the Sweals posts and came up with this. A couple of posts above that is some more profanity. Certainly seems over the top as I read it. Which is a shame.

I had to vote Kimmy. So sad that I am forgotten so fast that I'm not nominated I'm off to build a bridge now so I can get over it.