CANADIEN

He wouldn't be half as funny as he is if he was joking.

Sounds to me like you were born in the wrong period. And no I am not talking about the age of the dinosaurs even though it would be tempting to do so. Imagine if you had been alive when the federal Government created residential schools... Or when provincial governments where virtually banning the French language from schools and public institutions. The good you could have done by making them understand that this kind of LANGUAGE POLICIES was not needed. Interesting choice of verb, to comply... After all, the Merriam-Webster definition of that verb is: Makes me wonder what would have happened to those who didn't "freely" comply... Just curious. After all, French-speaking Canadians did not need to assimilate to be what they already were... Canadians.

Thanks for confirming once again that Quebec language policies would be just fine with you if it was English-speaking Canadians doing it to French-speaking Canadians.

Hey... I invented the word Leaflish. I demand payment of copyright royalties.

I just did, and I still marvel at your uncanny ability to make a fool at yourself. Leafless the language specialist and word creator... frankly. Well, anyone then can invent new words. For example, I could say that I have just q-tipped my ears (from the new verb to Q-Tip). But unlike you, I know that if I seriously claimed that this is a new verb, that is the one word that describes the reality I want to descrie (cleaning my ears with a Q-Tip) and my definition of that verb is correct, people would look at me funny. In other words, I don't recognize your word as being part of the English language, and I seriously doubt anyone will ever do. Stick to inventing new words nobody but you will ever use. Because you definitely suck at recognizing a Canadian when you see one.

Right now, he is too busy re-inventing the English language by giving words definitions nobody else has given.

Indeed, it is a pleasure to read yet another example of your uncanny capacity to make a fool of yourself. I quote an example of how the word is used, you provide a definition that appears nowhere else and I am the one misusing the word. Nope, what I have said is that thre is no example of the word submajority (regardless of how you spell it) being used or defined on the way you define it on the Web (outside of this thread, that is). As for the existence or non-existance of official submajorities (no matter how you spell it), in the sense you invented for the word, feel free to show an official text where the word is used as an official designation for any group. which is different from the meaning you invented for it in the Leafless language. Since it has been proven, and admitted by you, that I am Canadian, not French, I must assume that the person you are directing this little (and quite frankly hilarious gem) is, like about all your claims, a product of your imagination.

Don't tell us that, tell us to those people in China sitting in jail for campaigning for democracy.

Care to translate that into ENGLISH? Oh surprise, you missed an opportunity to learn something. Actually, a simple google search would have indicated that there is nothing ressembling the definition you give of sub-majority on the Web. Here we go anyways... In the paper I gave a link to, "Submajority Rules: Forcing Accountability upon Majorities" (Journal of Political philosophy, 2005), Professor Adrien Vermeule (Law Professor, Harvard Univeristy) describes submajority rule (that's the term he uses) as being Examples Prof. Vermeule uses refer to legislative and judicial boies, not election or referendums, in case you wonder. And you may want to read the stuff before you misuse the term further. That definition comes from the Leaflish language. sorry, I speak only English and French. The only people who think the FACT that a majority of people in some parts of Canada speak French is confusing are those who do not know Canada and you. And the only one on this website who thinks that fact is in and by itself a source of conflict is you.

CR reminds me more and more of those people who show the most outrageous hatred of Jews yet insist they are not anti-Semite because Jews are not the only Semites.

Careful. He will accuse of misrepresenting what he says, then when you remind him of his actual words he'll say that's what he meant all along. So what? But isn`t it self-evident (to Leafless)? Members of minority groups are by (Leafless's) definition second class citizens with less rights.

And everybody else's grasp of maths tells them that in any place there are more Francophones than Anglophones, there are more Francophones than Anglophones. Simple. Perhaps you should know what the term sub-majority means before misusing it. For your reading displeasure

I have heard about them. what would be too bad if it wasn't so hilarious is that you have never heard of English-speaking minorities - which anybody with a CLUE knows exist - and that you have no graps of basic mathematical concepts. You delusion is not the reality. Unless...(warning: the following is aimed at making fun of you, and as usual you will not get that) ... Francophones are a minority anywhere in canada. which must mean that, even I am single, I am a minority in my own house. Great - now if only I could find the two Anglophone roomates I didn't know I had snd start charging them rent. On the other end, if they have the looks of Shania Twain and the intellect of Condi Rice...

The shyte is what you are posting. There is no doubt that tremendous, horrific problems face First Nations, off and on reserve. There is also no doubt that the solution to these problems will not come from blaming and blaming and blaming. Most importantly, the best solutions are likely to come from the First Nations themselves. Because if they wait for the likes of you, all they will get is the same type of racist garbage we get from CharterRight every third posting. Neither him our you want real solutions, so why don't you both step out of the way.

The resrouces given elementary schools on the reserve would make school children in some African countries feel priviledged in comparison. They are under funded, and most importantly, under managed. In essence, they are operated the way single-school rural school boards were in the rest of the country before the 1960`s. Not surprisingly, there is a lack of administrative, curriculum and teaching resources. This is one of the main reasons most students in these schools won't even complete high schools. We are not talking about forming engineers, astronauts, doctors, but about the basics - elementary and early secondary education. The issue is not traditional ways vs university education. It's an education system that fits the needs of its population instead of the ill-managed under-funded one that we have now and that puts this country to shame.

(...) and Anglophones, and all Canadians. No need to thank me for correcting it for you. Admitting that would be as honest as stating I am a Klingon. Nope. I mean Canada IS a great country.

Not to argue that Diana was a saint. Far fro it. But she should have done what? Just smile and take her husband's obvious lack of love and flagrant love for another woman because Queen and Country demanded it? This was the 1980's, not the 1580's. As far as I concered, the Royal Family got everything that was coming to it.

except that the only one in this thread that is asked to show is "bilingual credentials" is the one Frenchie. Interesting. Of course it is a bad idea, except in Quebec of course. Because it is about the rights of English-speaking Canadians first and foremost. As for the French-speaking Canadians, I guess having second-class language rights is good enough... Interesting, btw, that what you promote, French-language services where French is predominent (which would be nowhere, according to Leafless, but I digress) happens to be exactly the standard for the level of municipal and provincial services provided in English in Quebec. Looks like Quebec's language legislation is bad, unless the words French and English are switched.

No more false than this quote of yours: Unless of course you have the referendum results that prove otherwise Forgetting about your own use of the words Nazi, fascist, gay, or the personal insults that come regularly from you against people favour equal language rights for Canadians? That being said, responsibilty for any "language problem" in this great country of ours rests primarily with YOU and the likes of you (such as those people who oppose the rights of English-speakers in Quebec).

Leafless' maths... Put 1 Anglophone in a room with 500 Francophones, and automatically there are more Anglophones than Francophones.

If one goes by a strict definition, if they were not in what is now Canada, they're no, as the term is typically Canadian and not used elsewhere. Mind you, if you were not mentioning human sacrifices by Aztecs and mayas, you referring to them as First Nations would not even be noticed.

Says the pot to the kettle

As far as I am concerned, the only consent they really need is each other's - like any other couple. May they have many joyful days.

Very good idea. Please feel free to lead by example anytime.

Shall we mention that the carbondating procedure used at Topper has been questioned, and that the findings are controversial amongst archeologists? link