PocketRocket

BB: You missed your calling.

I have to go weith CRAZYMF on this, although I would probably word it differently. We have to assume that a 16-year-old boy can defend himself against the wrath of a girl's mother. If not, then take your lumps like the man you're pretending to be. Going over a 15th-storey balcony is simply the height of foolishness.

"Poor chap"????? You figure??? *OUCH* And she threw it out of her moving vehicle on a busy highway!!!! I'd hate to have been in the car following her. ("Hey Martha, you see the size of the penis on that fly???") I think it made headlines because SHE CUT OFF HER MAN'S DICK. *OUCH* again. I'm sure that ANY woman, or man for that matter, would make headlines for doing the same. But I don't want to be part of any experiment to prove this theory. Putting your money where your mouth is is one thing, but....... Waitaminit. If she HATED sex, then why would she be jealous of her hubby having some elsewhere??? In once sentence you say she is deprived of orgasms, in the next you say she hated sex. Which is it??? A man who hates sex wouldn't be publicizing the fact. But for the record; I hate sex. No, sorry, I can't say that and keep a straight face. And funnier yet, they got back together. A sensible arrangement, really. If she hates sex, and he has no penis, well, it's a match made in heaven.

Then I guess I better start right away. So......what do you do for a living???? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I’m a female impersonator <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I hope you're happy. You almost made me blow coffee out my nose. Hilarious.

Missed a "T" there, chum. That's okay, but I'm not sure if we should alter it a bit further to be "PokeyRocket". That's about my speed in the morning My apologies, PocketRocket. I'm still in morning mode myself. No apology necessary. Obviously just a typo, which is why I just poked a bit of fun. If "sufficient" is the criterion, then we do not have a "sufficient" source of electricity at all!!!! You seem to think I am infering that ALL power come from windmills. Not so. Even today, we have hydro-generated power, nuclear-generated power, oil-fired-generated power. I don't believe we still have any coal-fire-generated power in Canada, but there are still a few (I believe) in the USA, and MANY abroad. So, there is no one single source which is "sufficient", but taken all together..... What I was pointing out is that wind is FREE. And maintenance costs on windmills is actually quite cheap. As to the birds, well, there's a way around any problem. With the plethora of windmill designs available to choose from, I'm sure we could manage to spare the majority of birds out there. In that other thread I spoke of, I mentioned a farmer in Northern Ontario who erected several windmills. They're actually quite pretty to see. They power his entire farm, and he apparently puts a bit of power into the grid. His cows graze all around and beneath the 'mills, undismayed by their presence. He was reported as saying the investment paid for itself in 7 years. The birds generally seem unconcerned as well, as there are, apparently, more than a few nests built on these structures. So yes, wind and sun may contribute in only a small way when each mill or solar generator is taken individually, but there is SO MUCH sun, and SO MUCH wind, and so many millions of acres where we could put these devices. With advances in science coming at an ever-accelerating pace, what was "unprovable" yesterday is provable today, and what is unprovable today shall likely be provable tomorrow. I understand your point and the goodness of your intention, but if good intentions were all that mattered we'd live in a perfect Utopia. A step in the wrong direction is not an improvement. I'm not saying that I have a better solution. I'm saying I don't think a better solution is required. If we put aside global warming for a moment, and look simply at pollutants, we may see cause for some mild alarm. While it may not be proven, at least to your satisfaction, that global warming is a threat, it has indeed been proven that the amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide/monoxide, and other "greenhouse gases" have risen dramatically in the past century, and very sharply in the past 35 years or so. Considering the Earth's considerable yet limited ability to "clean" herself by recycling these gases through what is essentially a massive biological filter system, and the fact that this same filter system is being attacked relentlessly through clear-cutting of rainforests, among other things, and also taking into account the fact that the world economy is growing at such a pace that the outpouring of domestically-produced pollutants is rising more quickly than ever before, do you not see this as a cause for some alarm, even taken outside the context of possible global warming??? Rates of asthma occurence, for example, are higher now than they have ever been in the history of mankind. This is attributed to higher level of pollutants which we are increasingly being forced to breather. Global warming is only one facet of the atmospheric pollution problem. How would you address the question of these other issues???? You have to swallow the man-made climate change theory hook, line and sinker to believe that a Hummer is worse than a moped. And I don't. And in my experience, the most ludicrous, reckless, ostentatious displays of wealth are to be found in the most horribly impoverished countries, where leaders spend international loans on new jets for their harems while ordinary citizens starve a few hundred feet away. Bill Gates has more money than Robert Mugabe could ever dream of, but which of them do you think owns the most and biggest vehicles? Who do you think cares more and has spent more of his own money on the people and environment in Zimbabwe? I would hardly compare the behaviour of despots to that of our supposedly more "civilised" citicens here at home. As for my "Hummer" comment, it was meant to point out general foolishness. This goes for the majority of people who own ANY kind of SUV. Let's face it, how many "Sports Utility Vehicles" are actually used for the purpose for which they were designed; ie 4-wheel-drive-wilderness applications??? When you own an SUV, and you live in California, and you NEVER drive on anything but well-paved streets, well, that's simply foolishness. Now, if we look at the reasons WHY these resources have not been exploited by government, I think it comes down to big-business economics. As long as there are megabucks being generated (pun unintented, but apropos) by the use of fossil fuels in creating electricity, we won't soon see any major movement towards a more "green" approach. There are simply too many dollars circulating, and as soon as any politician starts making noise about implementing such sources of power generation, lobby groups have/will get in the act to maintain teh status quo. After all, if suddenly 1/3 of our electricity was to come from windmills, the oil companies would see a sudden drop in profits which have been heretofore virtually assured earnings. As long as lobby groups have the kind of power they currently wield, we will not see any major changes soon. Hey, pal, right back atcha. And BTW, it ain't over yet

Actually, EUREKA, in other threads related to this topic in the past, links have been provided to dissenting opinions from scientists, so obviously there IS some disagreement in the "scientific community". As to whether or not we consider those particular dissenters and the organizations that commisioned their "studies" and/or "opinions" to be imparial is another matter entirely. So, as much as I personally believe that GW is MOST LIKELY an issue to be concerned about (thereby agreeing with you), I can also see how others can take the opposite viewpoint based onother information which is purported to come from science. As someone stated earlier, attacking the meesenger does no good, and can only bring down the level of discourse.

Well now, that was MUCH better

Missed a "T" there, chum. That's okay, but I'm not sure if we should alter it a bit further to be "PokeyRocket". That's about my speed in the morning Several such alternatives already exist, but they are not being exploited. In another thread some time ago, I pointed out windpower, among several other alternatives. Cheap. Clean. And an inexhaustable supply of FREE power. Hell, if they could erect a windmill inside the House of Commons, that alone could power half the country The problem here is that a theory is ALWAYS unprovable, until it's been proven. This particular theory, if we wait until it IS proven, could turn out to be disastrous, perhaps fatally so, for a large portion of the planet's population. A rather large currency with which to gamble. I believe you speak here of Kyoto. A very imperfect step. Not a solution at all, really, but at least a step. And yet the same wealth and freedom lead to people driving Hummers to the grocery store. To the salon. To the gym. Unfortunately, within a wealthy society, you will always find a significant segment who are more concerned with ostentatious displays of thier personal wealth that they are with environment, or with common sense for that matter. And your opinion is correct. As is mine: that if you ask the right people, they'll tell you it's proven fact. Just as if you ask the right people, they'll tell you it's complete and total bunk. Not enough evidence in yet to prove or disprove either side of the argument. But in your case, even though you argue that it is not proven, you at least acknowledge the fact that it is POSSIBLE, even if only remotely so. Admirable. Always good to keep an open mind. Sorry. My mistake. I stand, (or rather sit, geekily at my computer ) corrected.

BHS: Interesting post, but if you want to make it complete you must also look at the other side of the coin which would be "Doubt of scientific theory as a religion". History shows numerous examples of scientific theory being doubted, nay, scoffed at, by the powers that be at nearly every juncture. Shape of the Earth??? Well, EVERYONE knows that it's flat, and that if you sail too far beyond sight from land you'll fall off the edge. The Sun revolves around the Earth, which is the center of the universe. Things called germs, too tiny to see, cause disease??? Nonsense. It was a well-known fact for centuries that the stars foretell our fates. Or chicken entrails, or tea leaves. You name it. Hey, how about witches??? Do they sink or float??? Do leeches really get rid of disease??? They must as they were used by "medical men" for centuries. "Man will never fly". The Wright brothers took a lot of ribbing before their first successful flight. Pictures being sent throught the ether??? Nonsense. And yet, we have television today. And computers, and airplanes, rockets, space shuttles, microbiology, radiation, etc etc etc. If all the "pish-poshers" in history had their way, we'd still all be huddled around a fire to keep warm. The examples of conservative (I use the term literally here, not as a representation of current political alliances) thinking people saying "pish-posh" to any and all "new" or progressive thoughts on how the world around us works are too numerous to list in one place. This is happening again with global warming. Is it a proven fact???? Depends on who you ask. But my take on global warming is simple. I don't know for sure. Neither do you. But given that the planet is such a huge mechanism, and that anything we pour into her atmosphere can take anywhere from years to decades to show its full effects, my attitude is simple; why take a chance??? If we can reduce our emissions of "greenhouse gases", it can only be a good thing. Why??? Because even if global warming is just a bogie-man that a bunch of science geeks (as you term them) dreamed up, it can STILL only be a good thing to reduce the amount of gases we are emitting simply because if nothinbg else, we may be pouring more crap into the atmosphere than the Earth is capable of absorbing and correcting on her own. Any ecosystem can be poisoned if you pour enough crap into it. When you're driving a car and someone says "there's a sheer drop ahead", you slow down NOW, not after you've reached the brink and it's too late. If it ends up that there's no cliff after all, you can always speed up again.

Didn't Lorena Bobbitt say something like that??? Now there was a marriage that was a cut above all the rest. Oh well, she certainly got her pound of flesh, or at least a couple ounces.

Seeing as we're talking about weddings here, and in light of some of the revelations we've been enlightened with in a couple other threads here, I hope all the pre-nuptual agreements were worked out beforehand

Then I guess I better start right away. So......what do you do for a living????

Which is a feeling I had about you. Good response. But with such feelings about the preservation of Canada, don't you think it makes it pointless to say things like "Hey Quebec, get the hell out"???? That's what I was getting at.

Isn't there a forum on this website for discussing religious issues???? I hope the "devel" doesn't get me for suggesting that this post would be better suited there.

You can always count on someone coming out of the woodwork and saying "Throw out Quebec". Please tell us what makes you more Canadian than someone who lives in Quebec. *sigh* There's a whole thread dedicated to this, and most people who have posted in it seem to think that Klein was on the money with his statement. Even KIMMY, a die-hard Conservative agreed with him, as did other Conservative members on this board. Even if it turns out that he was wrong, he still spoke from the heart and said what he believes is the truth. If more politicians did this, maybe politics would be a less dirty game. I'll leave this issue because I am in partial agreement, and partial disagreement. If I were to post all my thoughts on this, there would be no end to this thread But your biases are clearly showing in the way you couch your words here. Agreed, but for different reasons. Why isn't the kid in school??? Well, let's look at this statement, but not until after we look at the next one...... So on the one hand, you're saying that everyone who thought Mulroney was guilty in the Airbus issue ought to now be eating crow. Yet, on the other hand, you're saying that it's okay to say the entire Liberal party is corrupt because of the actions of a few of the party members, DESPITE the findings of Gomery. Do we think this is a tad hypocritical??? Yes we do.

BB: Thank you very much. Unfortunately, not being a Gatorade drinker, now I'll have to go out scavenging other people's recycle bins for this simple source of amusement. I hope you're happy. You've turned me into a garbage scavenger. :angry: Hey, maybe once I gain a little expertise in trash-digging, I can get a job with a major tabloid paper. Hilarious post. Thanks.

Nah. My dream is to have a VERY RICH wife who goes out to work, so that I can stay at home But I'd be willing to settle for moderately wealthy, or even just kind of well-off.

ARGUS: Very thought-provoking post, and an idea that has not occured to me in the past. You ask a lot of good questions, to which I'm sure most of us have no answers. But a few of these you seem to have answered yourself; ie: how the Arab nations want to keep the situation with Israel uncomfortable. As to why these Arab nations have not been criticized for all this, well, it's probably for the same reason that it's never occured to me before; simply that no one has really considered the issue. How are these Arab nations about accepting immigrants in general??? If their immigration laws are on the lax side, then there can be no excuse. If they are more stern, then simply singling out the Palestinians for non-inclusion would definitely not be playing fair.

It depends on what you consider "morality" to be. Go back a century or so, and a woman wearing a skirt that showed anything above the ankle was considered immoral. Back to the same time frame, and a kiss in public was the same. What constituted "morality" a century ago would be considered overly stern by a priest nowadays. Since you seem to want specific answers, it would pronbably be better to ask the question in more specific terms. My take on morality is simple; if it doesn't hurt anyone else, knock yourself out. (If what you're doing hurts YOU ALONE, and no one else, it's not immoral, just stupid)

Well said, MELANIE. But I think you should see if the old french-maid's outfit will still fit

ModAmericain: Based on what you said in your last post, I have to agree in at least one regard. As much as I dislike Bush, Kerry was simply a non-starter. A limp noodle. A flat tire. An empty bottle. I could go on and on. During your last election, I have to say that if I was an American, I would have been longing for the days of Ross Perot, or ANY other 3rd party candidate to vote for. With the American system, which is essentially a 2 party system, sometimes as a voter you're between a rock and a hard place. (Edited to add:) Actually, that's not far off from where we are in Canada right now. Three choices, all of them bad.

Pocket said, just a post or so ago, that Joe Clark has lots of charisma, and with Christmas aproaching I think I know why he's thinking that. You see, Joe's "HO HO HOs" always sounded like what many of us imagine Santa Claus to sound like ... and Santa DOES have a lot of charisma. So many of us are bound to make that mistake while in the Christmas spirit. It's still too early but some children just can't wait, I guess. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Now BB, whatever happened to....... Same here! Same several times! WHAT A COINCIDENCE! I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> With friends like this, who needs enemas?????

CANUCK Well, between you and I, I don't think they were saying "Oh no, PR has voted for an alternative party, Let's rethink our strategies", which seems to be the way you're trying to make my post sound. Sorry. But with more and more people voting Reform each election, eventually the message started getting through that there was a new kid on the block, and he could be a contender. In the end, Reform became a contender. Then they morphed into first the CRAP, then, with a bit of clarity of thought, into the CPC. A wise man (whose name I cannot recall) once said that you should always vote. He went on to elaborate that there may not be anyone you want to vote for, but you can always find someone to vote against. Please point to where I said that. If you re-read the post carefully, you will see that I was addressing the question of why the Libs seem to get voted in repeatedly. Never ANYWHERE mentioned that the charisma issue had any effect on my own voting habits. I was simply pointing out (in a way which I thought everyone could understand) that a large portion of the electorate will vote for style over substance. Packaging over product. It's extremely unlikely that I will vote for Harper, but hardly because of the charisma thing. I simply find him to be an annoyingly shrill little man who has little or no idea how to play on the political stage. In his case, the CPC has neither the packaging, nor the product. IMHO. Other people have other opinions. They are welcome to them. We have heard, and will continue to hear, such opinions here. An infered slur??? Now CANUCK, after reading many of your posts, I thought these sort of attacks were beneath you. Especially when you base the attack on something I never said. Shame on you, young man. You go straight to bed without dinner.

Sorry, but I think Ralph will probably still be around long after we've forgotten the names McKay and what's-his-name, you know, the leader of the CPC. Honest-to-God. Call it a Freudian moment, but I've honestly just blanked out on his name Harper. Yeah. Harper. Wierd.

Not everyone is interested in sex......just the people who are breathing BTW, RB, great link you've provided here. The author wrote from experience and lent a lot of insight to the situation, without being embittered by his experience, or introducing any irrelevancies.