PocketRocket

Marilyn's enduring fame is partially a by-product of her death, be it suicide or whatever. In the same way that James Dean, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, Buddy Holly et al have become legendary after their deaths. Monroe was fairly hot, for her time, but really nothing special in comparison to other screen sirens of her day. If she had gone on to grow old and ugly, like Liz Taylor, Bette Davis, Shelley Winters, and other "beauties" of by-gone years, the adoration surrounding her would probably have fizzled out a long time ago. As for how she died, there are always stories of cover-ups involving any death of a celebrity, be it a political or entertainment celebrity. Look at the far more recent controversy regarding the death of Curt Cobain. Same scenario. Star commits suicide, someone's suspicion is aroused, conspiracy theories pour forth from the popular press. If there is indeed any plot, it's simply a plot to sell more newspapers, books and tabloid rags.

Welcome aboard. Hope you enjoy your stay.

How much is there to teach about ID???? Originally, I voted "no" in this poll, but upon further thought, I say what the hell, give them equal time as the theory merits. When teaching ID, the whole course would basically consist of "Some believe that God (or someone) created man and all creatures in their current form. Proof of this is that we are in our current form, and couldn't simply have got this way by coincidence now could we???" End of course. I mean think about it, if ID is the be-all end-all argument, then it's cut and dried. "We were created, as were all things we know". There's nothing else to teach. Next course, science.... "Now on to theory of evolution. Scientists believe that man and all currently living flora and fauna evolved, and this is how that works........" So the entire ID "course" would take up about 3 minutes of class time. If teacher then wants to go on to have a class debate regarding which theory holds water, well, based on empirical evidence, that would simply, in most cases, serve to shut down the whole ID argument.

BB: This is the gist of what I've been saying all along.

CEEMES: as a Canadian, my hat's off to you. My utmost respect to you and all who have served, both past and present.

Speaking of combative..... Anyway, hopefully I can make your day all sweetness and light. BTW, I see you're new here. Welcome aboard. I hope you enjoy your stay. Commendable. If we fought only for accolades, it would make a sham of everything we would fight for. Well, I'm not sure what I did to make my humble opinion all that important to you, but I'll choose to take that as a compliment. Thank you. But since it does seem important to you, I'll put it this way; I have immense respect for anyone who is willing to put him or herself in harm's way to protect another. Whether that "other" is friend, family, or countryman, it matters not. If you research some posts I did here a while back, I have said repeatedly that the "heroes" of any war are not those who have died, or even those who have seen action, but rather ALL of those who stepped forward and said "I'll go". The day a policeman first puts on his uniform and walks the beat in a violent neighbourhood.....hero. The day a recruit signs up, knowing he may be called on to fight.....hero. The day a volunteer fireman goes out, knowing he may have to step into that burning building to rescue a child.....hero. All these people and more have my utmost respect. But you don't honor a songwriter at the EMMY awards, and you don't honor actors at the GRAMMY's, and you don't honor mercenary soldiers-of-fortune at a remembrance day ceremony which is dedicated to honoring Canadian troops who fought FOR CANADA. Whther or not VietNam was fought to Canada's benefit seems to be a bone of contention in this thread, but to my mind it was not Canada's war, and benefitted us not at all (and benefitted both the USA and VietNam damned little). Hence my lack of disappointment that this particular group of "veterans" were not included in the honors this year. I hope I did so to your satisfaction.

"Suspect" that's not what she meant??? AUGUST, if it WAS what she meant, she would have been "getting back to" us immediately afterward crowing about how she was right and McKeown was wrong. I was aware that we had people there (Nam) helping supervise the withdrawal, but thanks for the link, I learned some stuff that was new to me. Coulter's comments, however, clearly implied that she thought Canada took part in a combative role. Canada has contributed to the war effort in Afghanistan, which I heartily approve of. But Afghanistan and Iraq are two totally different kettles of fish. Canada has, however, pledged something like $300Million to the Iraq rebuilding effort, and has sent personel to help train the new Iraqi police and army, from what I understand. So, like VietNam, while we refused to become entangled in a war which was not ours, we have helped to clean up the mess afterwards. That was also mentioned to Coulter in the interview.

I know a Canadian vetran who fought in Afganistan for the Russians. Should he be honored at offical ceremonies?Hmmm. Because of the tenor of your remarks, and because you chose to quote my post, I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me, or being sarcastic, or if you misunderstod what I was saying in the post.I am agreeing with you: Canadians who fought in Vietnam for the US are no different from Canadians who fought in Afghanistan for Russians. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Okay. All good. Just the way you had set it up left me wondering.

I don't check CBC.ca. I generally listen to Radio 1 for the news. I heard all about how the Libs are going to be forced to the polls via a non-confidence vote last night. On CBC radio. As for your questions...... Evidently not, although I'm sure that before long someone will come in ranting about how the CBC is "Pravda" all over again. Good question. When you get the answer, let me know (More important as a news item, I assume???)Well, apparently a third X-Men movie will be coming out next spring.

I know a Canadian vetran who fought in Afganistan for the Russians. Should he be honored at offical ceremonies? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hmmm. Because of the tenor of your remarks, and because you chose to quote my post, I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me, or being sarcastic, or if you misunderstod what I was saying in the post. Allow me to clarify.... No. He did not fight OFFICIALLY on Canada's behalf, so he should not be honored OFFICIALLY at a Canadian ceremony. Which is, by the way, the same thing I was saying about those Canadians who chose to fight in VietNam.

Monty, you seem rather confident in stating that Coulter was correct. Here's a video of the interview in question, in which she clearly states that CANADA SENT TROOPS. http://homepage.mac.com/onegoodmove/movies...coulterCBC.html Coulter is clearly NOT saying that SOME Canadians volunteered to join US forces, but rather insisting that CANADA SENT troops. She was clearly mistaken, as were you in saying her statements were "accurate". As an aside, she also did not feel compelled to "get back to you on that" as she promised, and no where on record (at least that I could find) does she admit to being mistaken in this regard. But then again, admitting her mistakes is not her wont, nor that of her ilk. But she is, after all, an entertainer first and foremost. She just happens to entertain in the political arena. As to whether these Vets should be honored, I would tend to say no. If they feel they did the right thing by joining the American forces to fight in a war that Canada had nothing at all to do with, then that feeling of having "done right" should be enough. Besides, the article does not state that they are not welcome at the ceremony, simply that they are not among the specific groups being OFFICIALLY honored in that particular ceremony. I believe OFFICIAL honors should be reserved for those who fought OFFICIALLY on Canada's behalf. Your article also mentions how the names of the Canadians who fell in 'Nam are included, and honored, on the Viet Nam War Memorial. If the USA is so appreciative of the Canadians who joined in that conflict, then the USA can officially honor them. They are, after all, quick to condemn Canadians who they believe MAY be affilliated with anyone or anything which is opposed to their efforts in Iraq (ie: Maher Arar) without any due process. They should be as quick to honor those who help them.

Amazing how a member-ban can bring a once-burgeoning thread to a sudden-screeching halt

Nope, we forgot about him. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What if He is actually She??? That would certainly explain the bad joke that the world seems to have become.

'Mornin', RB: I think you're painting a lot of men (or at least trying to) with the same brush. The reasons that some men will order a mail-bride are as varied as the number of men who place such orders. I've seen suggestions ranging from painfully-shy guys, who simply don't have the nerve to ask someone out on a date, to guys who want women they can easily dominate. My personal tendency would be to go with the former suggestion. Guys who simply want to "dominate" women are generally boorish louts who, because of their feelings of "superiority" over women, have no trouble approaching women. (There are, of course, exceptions to this.) The "domination" generally comes afterwards. All speculation aside (because ultimately, speculation is all we are doing here), the only way to get accurate answers is to ask the guys who actually do the mail-order thing. It's such a miniscule percentage of the population that I don't even see it as a legitimate political issue, simply one for casual conversation having curiosity value. As for this...... .....the same can easily be said about women considering their bustline to be "who they are". Consider that breast-augmentation is perhaps the single, most popular form of cosmetic surgery, and you get the idea.

If this is murder then what do you call dropping bombs and cruise missles in areas with large civilian populations? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Uh... war? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Interesting. Does this also apply to bombs which are delivered by hand??? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> To legitimate military targers, yes. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So then, someone who delivers a bomb, by hand (or otherwise) to blow up a tank (for example), is perfectly "legitimate warfare", even if that bomb goes off and kills a bunch of civilians??? So, an insurgent who does this (as they do all the time) is not committing a "terror act"??? After all, if a cruise missile aimed at a "military" target which just happens to be in an area with high civilian population is legitimate warfare, then the other case must be the same, right??? Just want to make sure we're all on the same page with this.

Omar Khadr was captured in July 2002. The Taliban had ceased to be Afghanistan's government in any sense by that time. -k <{POST_SNAPBACK}> By the same token, during WWII, in Nazi-occupied France, it could well be said that the french government had "ceased to be". Does that mean that the french underground could be classified as terrorists simply because they were fighting for the cause of a defunct government??? Same argument applies to Holland, Belgium etc....

If this is murder then what do you call dropping bombs and cruise missles in areas with large civilian populations? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Uh... war? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Interesting. Does this also apply to bombs which are delivered by hand???

LEAFLESS...... Apparently, it's Canadian law which permits this, not just Quebec law. Although, as stated, Montreal seems to be where most of the production is happening, I don't know that I would agree that this is part of a Quebec conspiracy. SPARHAWK.... Nothing pisses me off more than industry estimates of losses due to counterfeiting. These estimates always assume that every counterfeit represents a lost sale at full price. The fact is that most people do not pay full price for a legit DVD or the people buying counterfeits would simply go without if they could not get a cheap conterfeit. This means the real 'losses' are much less than estimated. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually, I have to agree with this. If you want a glaring example, look at the sattelite industry. There was a case a year or so ago in the USA where Dishnetwork sued a guy in Florida about $250K for 1 year of sattelite theft. That works out to about $685.00/day. Basically, he was being charged for EVERY channel (which he was getting), plus EVERY pay-per-view movie (which he did have access to, but hey, you can only watch one movie at a time, while there are actually about 40 movies playing simultaneously). Seems to me that this was hardly a simple redress of wrongs. More a case of setting an example. I believe the same goes on with any industry when they are claiming loss of revenue. SHARKMAN...... I agree that some sentences should be FAR more severe, especially those involving harm to another person. In the case of DVD-duplication/sattelite theft etc, wherein no one is visibly harmed, I don't mind seeing us err on the side of caution. If a kid records a copy of a CD for his best friend, should he be subject to the full weight of copyright laws??? I don't believe so. But hey, that's just my 2c, or rather 30c in the case of the cost of a blank writable DVD. CYBERCOMA...... I find that I agree with this sentiment. But, unfortunately, it seems the more ya got, the more ya want..... AUGUST1991...... They spoke of production, not sales. I have no idea where the market you speak of is located. As for AZUREUS, it's a great little facility, ain't it??? CYBERCOMA..... No, but it breaks my heart that he may not be able to get that shiny new HUMMER

BlackDog provided a couple links...... ...so I went to have a look at them. Amongst a lot of other stuff, the first had this tidbit.... Interesting. If "we" do indeed "not torture", then why do "we" want to reserve the right to tortue for the CIA??? But then again, even though torture may be illegal under the Geneva Convention, not to mention under UN laws (but hey, they're "irrelevant", so who cares), if Congress says it's okay, then that makes it legal for the USA to do it, right??? After all, an act of congress made it "legal" to invade Iraq..... And, it's not like "we're" detaining anyone who's not a proven "criminal", is it........ .....or at least, not many. At Guantanamo, only about 95% have not been charged with anything. But that's alright. "We" can choose to ignore international law, and "our" own domestic law because..... .....and, dammit, that's all the answer "we" need.

Just a few seconds ago, on CBC Radio One no less, I heard that Montreal is "A haven for counterfeit DVD manufacturers", and is costing the movie industry over $3billion/year. Apparently the laws in Canada do not restrict people from bringing cameras or camcorders in to movie theaters, and recording whatever they want there. Interesting. So yet again, Canada is a "haven", but this time for copyright pirates. Not a particularly pretty picture. Hollywood is hopping mad.

I got a chuckle from a reader-reply letter in Time magazine yesterday. It said something to the effect of "Those who advocate the theory of intelligent design need only to look around at what's happening in the world to debunk their thoughts". Rather apt, I thought.

Could you be a bit more specific???

I believe our fellow Canadians who think we could not have riots are dead wrong. It takes very little to provoke a riot. think back just a few years to the riots in Montreal outside the Forum. I don't even remember what started it. A cancelled concert??? Oh yeah, Guns'n'Roses closed their show after only 20 minutes because their singer had a sore throat, or something like that. Hardly on the scale we are seeing in France, but still, a lot of damage done for no good reason. Imagine if Celine Dion cancelled a show in Quebec. It'd set the nation on fire

*chuckle* You got that right. In fact, it could well be argued that that's a kid's job description. Kinda like puppies in that regard.

Hi RB. Been a long time..... I think they were going to post the transcripts at Perverted Justice http://www.perverted-justice.com/ Thanks for the link, but they're having some website problems at the moment, so the transcripts cannot be accessed. I was waxing rhetorical, but seeing as this is about internet predation, it would be easy. Picture a message board. Picture this message from "CutiePie" (message and character are fictional)......"Hey boys, I'm lookin' for some hot action. I'm 14, and I want to get hoy and sweaty with an experienced man". Seems pretty obvious. As for the boys, they don't need to put up a sign. Boys are always ready, always willing, and just waiting for the opportunity. Kind of like fish in a bowl waiting for their food. Like any tool, the internet is a two-edged sword. It's benefits are enormous, but the means by which it enables various sorts of crime are also considerable. Predation is indeed a problem, but there's little we can do about "consenting adults", which, apparently, a 14-year-old is. The best defense is to educate our kids well.