PocketRocket

I agree. Seconded.

Oleg Bach: :lol: Nicely put!!! Mr Canada: Nah, it's just an very misguided attempt by a very noisy and deluded minority to avoid making anyone feel alienated during the, *ahem*, "holiday" season. One problem with Canada and the USA is that a small of people can get what they want if they make enough noise. Sense does not come into play. Mr C, we have finally found something on which we can agree. This year, I'll hang an extra decoration on my tree just for you. (Yes, I know it sounded sarcastic, but I'm serious. I will do that. And early though it may be, may the season find you and your family happy and healthy. I'm saying it now in case things heat up between us and I forget later)

All quotes are from the link provided by noahbody...... A judge, and from the sound of the name, a Jewish judge. By occupation she is hardly someone I would deem an average citizen, and by religion certainly not a left-leaning Christian. Provocative comment, perhaps, but IMO something that needed pointing out. She goes on to say...... I can see her point, in a very teeny-tiny way, if she feels people are coming into the court are being given the impression that the court itself is a Christian institution. But rather than ban the one icon, why doesn't she simply put up some Jewish paraphernalia at the appropriate time of the season??? Put up the respective religious paraphernalia for EVERY major religious celebration. Let's make EVERYONE feel included. I have no problem with that. It could actually foster a bit of understanding between members of various faiths. I believe the Cross is a Christian symbol, but a tree??? A Pine or Spruce tree??? Don't recall any mention of either sort of conifer in the Bible. It is a tradition to decorate such a tree during the Christmas season, but the tree itself carries no significant RELIGIOUS symbolic weight. Perhaps this particular judge is overly fond of her own faith to the detriment of others??? Not accusing, simply pointing out possibilities. However, it seems for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction..... Go, Mel!!! And in between....... And the moral of the story is that it seems in this particular incident, common sense prevailed, as it usually does.......eventually.

Aren't you the same guy that said...... Pre-1964. About the time when residential schools were in their heyday. I don't suppose you consider tearing a Native child away from his home, family and friends, against his will and the will of his family"kidnapping" or "terrorizing" in any sort of way, do you??? I don't suppose forcing our Christian beliefs down his throat whilst robbing him of the beliefs of his own people would qualify, under your lofty standards, as transgressing against his freedom of religion??? I don't suppose you consider the Native people of Canada to qualify as a minority who was persecuted in the ways you've mentioned??? I don't suppose the faith of our Native people was legitimate in your eyes, and so in our lovely, pre-1964 Canada, it was okay to prosecute them for their own faith??? Gotta love Canada pre-1964. Personally, I recall 1967 quite fondly. I got to take part of the ribbon-cutting ceremony at the new Centennial Library Sorry, Mr C. You're just too much fun, and too easy a target.

That's a silly post But no worse than many here On Mapleleafweb EDITED: to fix A typo in second line Must learn to proofread

I don't see an entire culture being built around the romanticizing of the depression-era gangs, nor do I hear songs on a daily basis which praise the virtues of being a member of the Hell's Angels od Bandidos. Can't say as I've seen a lot of teenage kids dressing like the Angels, either. OTOH, it seems like half the kids in the street, rich and poor, are doing the crotch-of-the-pants-at-the-knees thing, the oversize hoodies, and all the other popularized gangsta-rap-affiliated mode of dress. Point well taken, but I don't recall mentioning anything about banning guns, so I'm not sure why you've chosen to direct this at my last post.

I don't know if I would say it's low IQ's that are the problem. Young people are immortal-in their minds. I recall when I was much younger. I still shake my head at some of the things I did. While not TOO illegal, I definitely took some pretty scary risks to life and limb, all in the name of fun. It was all done with the unshakable confidence that only a young person can have, the confidence that nothing unduly bad could happen to me. Now, older and (I hope) wiser, I gauge my risks more carefully. These kids in gangs may or may not have high IQ's, but, IMO, the problem relates more to their youth, and that sense of immortality. Throw a lot of bad parenting into the mix, lack of education, or rather lack of parent to lay the smack down on the kid for not taking his/her education seriously, and they sure SEEM stupid. All that coupled with the recent romanticizing of the modern day "gangsta", the traditional turf wars that we've seen in one form or another for decades, and the availability of weapons, it's all a recipe for "disasta". Bill Cosby has a similar take, if you've ever looked into any of his rants on the state of the African American situation.

Or perhaps a motherly mate I like boobs. Any size, but not any shape. But as long as they are not super-saggy, I am quite happy making them my playground. Yes, I too am a pig But an honest one. Apologies to any ladies who may be offended by that. EDITED TO ADD: Forgot to mention, I have a strong revulsion to the taste (and the entire idea) of plastic, so surgically-stuffed boobies do not do it for me. Au natural.......always good.

Heya Wild Bill. Thanks for the info. I'm not sure, however, that he's a simple troll. Simple, yes. Troll?? I think most trolls are more inflammatory and less willing to at least TRY to use reason. While his attempt are poor, and often self-contradictory, I do believe the man in sincere, in his own. narrow-minded way. But then again, I'm just back from an approximate 3-year absence, so he, and many others here, are new to me. We'll see how long it takes me to get fed up this time...... Cheers!!!

KIMMY: I hadn't realized how much I missed you wry wit until I got back here a couple days ago. One point that had been repeatedly raised is the emaciated state of runway models. I don't really see THOSE models as the problem, though. Most teenage girls are not going to high-profile fashion shows, but rather seeing magazine models. Not much difference, but some. Nonetheless, most models in mags, on covers, etc, are still quite thin. Bottom line is that as long as there is a market for these rags, and they continue to sell, the publishers will find no reason to change their formula. I'm trying to recall the women's magazine that a few years back said it wasn't going to do this anymore; promoting the unrealistically-thin body image. And yet, some months later, upon glancing through one of these in my workplace, every advertisement showing a woman (aside from Reitman's ads) were using very thin models. I guess it's easy to talk the talk.... Beyond all this, though, is a point raised earlier in this thread (I do not recall the author, and my apologies for that) that a good parent should be able to teach their kids that images seen in the media are in no way related to reality. Blaming the fashion industry for anorexia is kind of like blaming Ozzy Osbourne for teen suicide rates. Yeah, he wrote "Suicide Solution", but if a kid is so screwed up, with no real logical frame of reference that he offs himself because of something he heard in a song, then it's highly likely that if that song had not come along, then something else would have triggered him later. In a related issue, and one which may make me seem hypocritical, is a concern over the effect of gangsta rap. The rap itself, I do not see as dangerous, although it is sometimes disturbing. The real issue is the idolization of the gang culture. Whatever happened to the old heros; Cowboys, police, Soldiers, Firemen, hell, even Batman and Robin??? What the hell happened that our kids are idolizing these new goons, and prestige is based on how many bullet or knife wounds these losers have??? Sorry, I did digress in a big way. Long day at work, and being over-tired tends to make me wander a tad....

So our flag, the banner of our nation, is a "Liberal Rag"??? Nice. "We stand on guard for thee", indeed. Fine comments from a native son. So Canada is "too far gone"??? Too bad you weren't........gone, that is.

ToadBrother: That last post you made was excellent. Very insightful, with some new information of which I had been previously unaware. ARGUS Kudos to you for your last post as well. You two have both raised some great points, many of which I had not previously considered, Thanks to you both.

You never said he was guilty??? Interesting. And yet when all I have argued is the simple fact that his guilt has not been proven, you have repeatedly accused me of defending a child molester. If you are not assuming him to be guilty, then why is he not an "alleged" molester??? Additionally, in your post immediately previous to this one, you say.... Hmmmm.....so he's a "diddling piece of human garbage". In your opinion, this is not a straightforward condemnation??? And before that one, there was this.... Sounds pretty much like you've passed judgment and decided he is guilty, and posting a statement like that is a public declaration of his guilt. Perhaps we should make it a poll and see if I am the only one who has interpreted your remarks that way??? You continue in trying to distract me with accusations that I defend pedophiles. I've already said I do not. What I DO defend is a person's right to a fair trial before they are pilloried. You don't seem to think some people are entitled to a trial before YOU pass judgment. That has been my entire argument throughout this thread. And you have contradicted yourself nearly every time you have replied to me. And for the record..... Congratulations on your use of the word "alleged" in this post, but nowhere did I say anyone should support him or any other "alleged" criminal. What I said is they should get their day in court BEFORE we publicly tar-and-feather them. That is all. Once pronounced guilty, I'll help you lock them up, and I'll do my best to lose the key. Until the day that a court pronounces them guilty, I will hold my tongue. You don't seem to think that's important.

ToadBrother: You may as well save your breath, friend. The man is guilty because Mr Canada says he is guilty because he MUST be guilty because if he were not guilty the police never would have laid charges because....... It's a never ending circle. And if you disagree with the assumed guilt, then you must hate children and love pedophiles because if you didn't you would agree that the man is guilty because Mr Canada says he is guilty because the police laid charges because........ .....and so on.

Does anyone have any idea if this ever went to trial??? SLIM: Don't forget that while your mythical friend is getting all those things regulated, that he should include the banning of slender women from the modelling industry.

TrueMetis seems to have addresses all these points already, at least as capably as I could. Charter.Rights brought up some fresh points which seem to be relevant, but I'll wait for your response to those.... I'll content myself with addressing your personal attack on my integrity, which I have highlighted in bold print to make it easy for you. You make the assumption that simply because I disagree with your conclusion, that I am not concerned for the welfare of children. In that other thread, as you should be aware, my ONLY contention is that you are casting yourself in the triple role of judge/jury/executioner. In that thread a man was accused of a crime, but not convicted. You have concluded that he is guilty, and you are broadcasting that so-called "guilt" as fact, not simply as your personal opinion. But I'll leave that thread where it is. We do not need that thread spilling into this one. But elsewhere you said...... .....seemingly showing your disapproval of "nanny-state" mentality. And yet here in this thread, you actually ask for governments to regulate what a model should look like??? In both threads where we have met, you have given arguments which are counter to points you have raised elsewhere. You seem to do this on a regular basis. You'll raise a point, or take a stance, and you are completely unshakable in your opinion. But change the topic, and suddenly you take a completely opposite stance. There is a word for someone who exhibits this sort of behavior. That word is hypocrite. Sad, indeed, on two counts. Your inability to see your own hypocrisy for what it is, and sadder yet, your choice of moniker. By calling yourself "Mr Canada" you have and continue to besmirch the name of the country I love and call home.

Generally, in this country, when accusations are brought, the accused is not the one launching the lawsuit, he is the one defending. If he is found to be innocent, he may launch a counter-suit for slander or some such. Seldom are both cases happening simultaneously. Does that reply meet your expectations??? As for how an innocent person would behave, again, show me your psychology credentials, and then we'll talk about how someone in a particular circumstance would act. But you're right about one thing. You are not going to convince me. What you are wrong about is what is is you're not going to convince me of......I will not assign myself the multiple tasks of judge-jury-executioner. You seem to have no problem taking on these multiple tasks. Must be nice to be infallible. And you sir, who I have so far refrained from attaching a label to, appear to be a hypocrite; that assumption based on your self-contradicting posts.

I've not been following Mr Obama's exploits as closely as many, and have been almost completely out of the political loop for some time now. But what the hell, I'll bite...... Evidently the Dalai Lama and his camp are not as upset about the issue as you seem to be. Seemingly they have no problem waiting for a later meeting with Obama. From what I've seen of Obama, I like the guy. Let's face it, he is under the microscope like no previous president has ever been. He is human, he will make mistakes. But I find his approach a bit refreshing, and I like the fact that he is not following in the exact footsteps of his predecessors. Britain will not sink into the North Atlantic just because he does not meet with their PM for a while longer. Visits to Israel have been SOP for past presidents. They can wait a bit longer as well. Perhaps the fact that Obama is extending a friendly hand to other countries first will make a little bit of difference in the global political landscape in years to come. Then again, perhaps not. Only time will tell. I, for one, am willing to give the man the benefit of the doubt. No way he can be any worse than the man who held office immediately before him.

I have no problem with educating people. I do have a problem with legislation dictating what the acceptable size of a model may be. If the models are the problem, then the solution, as I see it, is simple. Consumer-driven objection. As long as the population at large buys the products/magazines/etc which are using these malnourished waifs as promotional tools, the trend will continue unchanged. Stop buying these products and changes will be made. IOW, like anything else, it's a case of supply and demand. You keep buying COSMO, and COSMO will continue using the same old formula that is generating sales.

You make it really tough to not start calling names. Your logic is as solid as your grammar (....he had to of....???) I get the idea that you did not even read my previous post. All it takes is a single accusation for charges to be laid. That accusation could be a lie from someone with an ulterior motive. Exactly right, and in our country the law says "Innocent until proven guilty" It's as simple as that. As someone who claims to be Conservative, I would think you would be mindful of the law. As someone who claims to be Christian, I would think you would be mindful of Christ's law. No sir. On both counts, you know best. You know better than the law of the land, and you know better than God Himself. It is people like you who ASSume that someone is guilty, simply because charges have been brought, who cause the sort of stigma I have wasted several minutes of my life trying to get through your skull. If being charged with a crime automatically meant guilt, then we would have no need for lawyers, judges, courtrooms, etc. Perhaps we should all follow your lead and just assume that everyone who is charged with a crime is automatically guilty. After all, they must have done SOMETHING wrong, or the police wouldn't have charged them. Hell, let's throw Milgard back in jail. Let's throw ALL those who have been accused in jail, even those who have been found innocent in a court of law. Let's just get rid of the judges and lawyers and courtrooms and just assume everyone the police pick up is guilty and throw them in jail. Think of the millions the country would save in legal wranglings. I should have seen the brilliance in your scheme before

This is a case of the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law. The workplace smoking law was passed to protect non-smokers in the workplace from the hazards/inconvenience of 2nd hand smoke. Alone in a truck, with no one else to inhale such smoke, the law becomes irrelevant. The article did not mention whether the charge was contested. Anyone know anything about that??? I would like to think that a sensible judge would throw this one out......

Yes, yes. Damning evidence in the case of pedophilia is having a kid say "he touched my.....". THAT, sir, is all the damning evidence required for investigations to be launched and arrests to be made. And in the case of an old acquaintance of mine, the "damning evidence" was his psycho ex-wife who simply wanted to cut him off from all contact with his own kids, so she cast false allegations. Luckily for my friend, she was a poor liar, and after a few months of contesting this, she was told, by the judge, who saw through her lies, that if she did not tell the truth immediately, she would be charged with contempt, and would spend time in jail. She came clean at the behest of her council. My friend, however, still lives with those whispers behind his back. After 12 years, with both kids grown up, and both having said that they spoke the lies at the urging of their mother, the stigma remains. Not so cut-and-dried when it's someone you know, when it was indeed untrue, and when the injured party is punished for years after the fact, and punished for a crime he did not commit. The kids, by the way, moved out of their mother's home, and back in with their father and his wife of their own volition. "Had to get away from the old psycho" is what they'll tell you if asked why they left their mom. So you see, sir, my contention is not about how we should treat pedophiles, but how we should NOT pre-judge ANYONE. That is why we have a legal system, and why we pay judges. And this makes it right??? Hmmm. Good solid mob-mentality here. "We got away with lynching that boy yesterday, so let's lynch another today". My entire point is that we, as a society AND as individuals should take more care in passing judgment. We should wait until the facts are in, ALL the facts. You have not done that, and THIS is the point I am addressing. I am not a psychologist and so do not claim to know all the inner workings of the human mind. You do seem certain, though. What are YOUR qualifications. I also do not deal in absolutes, nor in blanket statements. Are you claiming that there is not a single person out there who DOES have the urge to touch children, but is not able to control it??? Kind of tough to prove, so we should probably leave that one alone. I have the same lack of sympathy, for CONVICTED pedophiles. Show me the proof, and I'll help you throw him in a cell. I also do not make it my business to defend CONVICTED pedophiles. (Although your implication that I do does not go unnoticed, I simply refuse to enter a flame war) I agree, once convicted, they should be punished severely. I, in fact, would applaud the introduction of some sort of surgical procedure to render them impotent. I would, however, like to see a reversible procedure as we have, in the past, seen convicted men who later turned out to be innocent. I am sure you do not need me to cite such a case for you. Bottom line here, sir, and where we differ, is NOT in our mutual loathing of pedophiles, but in your premature assumption of guilt. We have a legal system. We live in a society where someone is SUPPOSED to be innocent until proven guilty. From the tone of your posts here, it seems to me that if you lived in my area, and knew my friend, you too would be one of those whispering vile things behind his back. Perpetuating false information about an innocent man. That, sir, is where we differ, and until you admit that someone should NOT be publicly vilified until the facts are in, then we shall continue to be at odds. Until you do come to this realization, you will continue with a 16-th century witch-hunt mentality, where the mere accusation is sufficient to condemn a person. I refuse to regress to such a state.

Thanks, Melanie. Good to be back. I don't think I'll be frequenting the place as often as I used to, but I'll be dropping in from time to time.

The rest of this post was addressed by my previous response. As for this line.... How much closure do you want??? The guy is DEAD. I think that's about as much closure as someone who has been assaulted, sexually or otherwise, could hope for. Knowing the (alleged in this case) predator who assaulted you is no longer among the living would, I think, allow these people to sleep just a wee bit better.

Hi, ya'll. Been away for a few years. Nice to be back. Straight into the fray..... And the key word here is "alleged". As others have pointed out previously, you seem to have taken upon yourself to convict the man with no benefit of trial. If the man was indeed what he was accused of being, then my sympathy is also limited. There is another possible scenario that does not seem to have been touched on here as of yet. The mere accusation of pedophilia has an inherent stigma which simply does not go away. Just as you found this man guilty with no trial, a large segment of society has the tendency to do the same. Let's take as an example the late, great Michael Jackson. Accused, but never convicted, EXCEPT in the court of public opinion. To this day, jokes abound about the man and his alleged activities. At risk of sounding holier-than-thou, but true nonetheless, through all those years I always gave MJ benefit of the doubt. It was plain to anyone with eyes that someone casting such accusations at a man of MJ's wealth could stand to make tons of cash.....and they did. Was MJ a strange man??? You bet he was. Did he enjoy the company of children, even in his bed??? By his own admission, yes he did. Did he sexually abuse these kids??? Easy to come to the conclusion that he did, based on all evidence provided, and yet after his death, at least one of his former accusers has come forward and admitted that his accusations were made at the behest of his mother in an attempt to grab some of MJ's cash. As to WHY MJ may have enjoyed romping, rollicking pillowfights with kids, consider the fact that he never had a childhood of his own. Never had a private life. Maybe playing with kids, having sleepovers, etc was simply his own strange way of reclaiming his own lost childhood. We will never know. But we do NOW know, as stated previously, that at least one of the cases brought against him was false. Were the others false as well??? And yet, even with this knowledge now made public, we STILL hear the MJ-as-child-molester jokes. The stigma remains, even after his death, simply because accusations were brought. Perhaps the ALLEGED pedophile you are so quick to condemn also feared living with such stigma. Perhaps THAT is why he offed himself. Perhaps also, since you claim to be a Christian, it would be better to take to heart the words from the Bible from which you are quick to quote. Perhaps you should keep in mind that "Judgment is mine, sayeth The Lord". Until I meet you in person, and see your halo, by your own beliefs you are not qualified to judge others, unless your beliefs are not so strong as you claim. Citation, please.