Search the Community

You really REALLY hate when people show your words back to you, I can see. Again, I understand that that is difficult but all we have here is our statements. 1. "Good faith" means when you make a statement, you either stand by it or retract it. Your statement about not giving up any creature comforts for the planet is in limbo, as I asked you to retract it or confirm it as "tongue in cheek" as you now claim. 2. Well as someone who moralizes and virtue signals about "the children" (Do you have children?) it's a valid question. 3. Like the word "groomer" which you now redefine to use against people who are acting in good faith. 4. Like you putting me on IGNORE for asking you to not use the term "groomer". 5. You BLOCKED me because you couldn't stand me asking you questions. Find a single example of me calling you fascist, transphobic or the like. So slippery, and passive-aggressive to now post about me to others rather than answer my questions. I don't think you're up for being on a forum. Have you ever conceded a point, learned something, or admitted a mistake ? Do you know the term 'mea culpa' ? It's an admission of error. I have made at least 33 on here, as per this search. You don't appear to have made any. https://repolitics.com/forums/search/?&q=culpa&author=Michael Hardner&search_and_or=or

Mea culpa. I confess that I don't always read the entire post.

OOPS... the Voice of Fire controversy was 34 years ago ! Jeebus I am an old skeleton goddam... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Holtmann Mea Culpa - it was a drunk driver Conservative MP Pig Farmer from Manitoba who didn't like the purchase. Not to disparage his hobby and career, but so it is.

1. Not necessarily. The Halton Trolling Trans Teacher was much bigger internationally and the students didn't reveal additional details. I think it has more to do with people not sending reporters to such stories. In any case, you can't say "that's all the information there is" until the board reveals their side - if that even happens. It hasn't in Halton either. 2. It's possible to state an impolite or hateful opinion in polite tones too. In any case, you seem to be saying the whole question is valid. Well, that's your opinion but we're discussing this case here and your opinion on the validity of human rights policy doesn't enter into this very discussion as far as I can see. 3. Maybe I am ? Maybe my position is more nuanced than you make it out to be, because I also have a strong religious background. In any case, do you see me putting comments about you into this discussion ? 4. I'm writing about your posts. I'm not saying that you personally are disqualified from posting or biased... I'm talking about what you have said. You decry snowflakes and people who are overly sensitive but you are the pot calling the kettle based on your own words. 5. Do you really need to read a book to know that people are allowed to have an opinion ? Pretty much everybody pays taxes by the way, you're not really that special. 6. Ok - well you're changing the point we were discussing. You're bringing in a new topic - the consequences of talking about transgenderism in society. I accept that people can be punished disproportionately for holding moral views that are outside some indescribable frame. But that's not what we were talking about. You said that 3/4 of Canadians agree with what exactly (?) the student said, which is a different point. 7. No that's hyperbole. 8. Mea culpa - you're right, I thought they said "arrested" as per the subject line of this thread. Please shorten your answers if you respond. This is too drawn out and just repeats a lot of stuff. It's tiresome to rehash the same points I have made already on this thread. If you write a looooong post with no new points I will just respond to the parts that bear response.

1. Weird. You call my post dishonest then immediately make an assumption of what it said. No, I wanted to know what YOU think. Discussion forum and all that ? Culture change is something I take part in professionally and I'm interested in peoples' views. 2. I never said you were wrong, I said you would get better. Your false assumption here is a perfect example. 3. Mea culpa. I'm assuming you are a feverish Trudeau-hater. Am I wrong ? I will ask you honestly here. 4. Not dishonest, although I admit I made a bad assumption. I asked you to clarify in #3. What is your EMOTIONAL reaction to Mr. Trudeau our Honourable PM ? 5. OMG... you call me dishonest and yet you persist to call me a Liberal lover. Here's your last clarification: I am not. 6. Pierre already knows how to play ball with the mainstream Canadians - promoting not one but TWO LGBTQ vanguards to his inner circle. The first act of any revolutionary government is to assassinate the operatives don't you know ? 7. I maintain that the Liberals are NOT "left". All governments promote the business sphere heavily, even the NDP. You should read Francis Fukiyama "The End of History". That explains where leftism went.

1. Not specifically 2. I suppose. It's a pretty broad question, and mea culpa I didn't recognize that you posted it and so I gave a flippant answer. 3. Yes this is true... but did you look into this question before asking us?

Sorry, mea culpa. "dumbest Trump post" was this:

1. Mea culpa - I do find conspiracy theories to be fun to poke at, the equivalent of popping bubble wrap on here BUT your response overstated my criticism of the refrain that climate change response is bankrupting us. The costs and remediations have been estimated in the single digits as % of GDP in past studies. 2 I'm sorry that you are not used to reading informed opposition to your opinions. Next time read your posts to your pet parrot and she will squawk agreement to make you feel better 3. Agreed and thanks for the compliment. I sure don't feel that I am "smart" which is why I am on here trying to learn from other posters, such as yourself. 4. Since its a global count, that doesn't mean much. Also, a few years isn't long enough to get a measure of the impact. And finally, you are incorrect as emissions lowered in 2020. https://www.iea.org/news/after-steep-drop-in-early-2020-global-carbon-dioxide-emissions-have-rebounded-strongly 5. Maybe, maybe not. I have read the opposite but if you have a cite then ok. https://www.autoserviceworld.com/the-significant-impact-gas-prices-will-have-on-driving/ 6. Yes and other events are impacting that a lot more than an 11 cent per litre tax on gas. I'm not a millionaire but I live in a city so I don't drive so much and the carbon credit pays for the additional tax for this working class family. 7. I am more than willing to listen to arguments that are backed up, in this case with some math. From everything I read the initial inflation and shortages came from global supply chain situation... we are now dealing with labour shortages, gas shortages and the situation is dire. If you think spending $2/litre vs $2.11/litre will fix everything than ok. 8. This criticism is valid. I believe the Conservative Party campaigned on creating a direct carbon credit system of some kind - maybe that's more to your liking IDK.

Alright, enough of this. Fck the French Revolution. I accept that I'm getting blown out of the water, mea culpa; let's you and I get back in the swimming pool then and drop it for now.

1. Well, mea culpa, yes I missed the obvious live video footage of inappropriate behaviour, but I'm talking about scrutiny of data, and so on that isn't backed up by obvious evidence. 2. The stories reinforce the status quo, which is bad and cuts both ways. This means America will never need to be reformed, but somehow simultaneously that it is permanently racist and no progress has been made. What needs to happen, IMO, is a bifurcation of television and new media news into "pop news" which is the equivalent of a broadsheet newspaper and "serious news".

Now you're backtracking again. I think I'm done with this. These types of posts help progressives look illogical... Please do yourself a favour and run through some math exercises, times tables etc. Edit: Ok - I see you said 'base'. You're not backtracking - I missed this detail mea culpa. Your math is still wrong, though but maybe you can advance to calculus.

1. That doesn't mean it didn't motivate him. It was a step in his development as a mass murderer and only a willfully blind person would deny the facts. 2. I said that without utility there's no reason to allow communication that has damaging effects. 3. Another insult. If you have thought through your answers, why haven't you posted them ? I asked several times. I am getting tired of you talking past me: I stated my reasons several times. .. Mea Culpa - this is thread drift. I will tie it back to the OP by saying that our society has become so narcissistic that we actually argue our political choices and philosophy as personal attributes like clothing. Most of the people I encounter who discuss politics are vain types who cut and paste quotes like the liberty quote. They are young and don't know how to argue objectively without insults. Politics and even philosophy is a shallow entertainment like fake wrestling or FOX news. With age will come wisdom.

Mea culpa. I shouldn't say BETTER though I do. And I am speaking of partisan rags sponsored by the parties that dominated at that time.

Mea Culpa. That's one I have never got right.

1. Mea culpa. Although once he had the nomination, I checked my notes and realized that nothing is for certain, and pollsters' overconfidence is a well-known problem. 2. To be determined. It's what democracy looks like today, but I believe it is different from the past. This is what history looks like, I'd say. Whether democracy continues as it has is an open question.

1. They had strong but opposite views of how Canada should work. I didn't agree with Mulroney but I do now. Trudeau defined the national character but gave birth to a divisiveness that remains today. 2. Mea culpa. He did some heartless things but people make him into too much of a monster. I hate meme politics.

Ok, well mea culpa I guess. I realize now that I should NOT have posted on the cross-posted thread. But in my defence I didn't realize it was cross posted until the day I reported it. I did not let the post sit unreported knowing it was in violation, nor did I comment on it knowing it was in violation. In the past cross-posts were taken down without moderators discussing it as I recall, but ok. Your "Please do not feed what you want censored" is a subtle dig at me wanting censorship. In fact, I don't want to shut down ideas on MLW but I do want you to kick out low-quality participants such as 9/11 truth folks. I would thank you to not take sides when I ask a question, and I in return will not bring your particular world view into the discussion when you go out of your way to allow crackpots, and conspiracy theorists to thrive and dominate this once amazing board. Thanks. The other alternate fact you offer is this phrase: 'what you believe to be cross posting'. It is an odd term. We already have had problems with the subjective definition of 'trolling' in the past, now you seem to be saying 'cross posting' can be a subjective thing? You can find the identical post here, if you keep scrolling down to a post 'lifting the veil' from 3 weeks ago. https://gotube.site/video/ghr-JMq1VT0 Are you saying that if I had not posted on the thread in question, giving you an excuse to keep this poster around, you would NOT have assessed what he did as cross-posting ?

1. You call me biased, yet you post made-up shit and stuff from hate websites. 'Wary' not 'weary'. 2. Yes but not always. 3. Western nations that fell to Sharia Law ? I guess you couldn't give an example. "North Africa" "Persia" LOL, but thanks for trying. 4. Yep. Mia culpa. 5. 'Almost proof' and yet, not proof. If you want to convince others, you have to build the discussion on agreed-upon sources and facts. Your make-belief sources are as convincing to me as the bible or Koran to an evolutionary scientist.

? 'mea culpa' means 'It's my fault". Are you saying it's your fault that all contra-Argus folks are Marxist ? ? We're having a major problem with language on here.

You quoted it here ! I admit the quote - mea culpa. I even hit report for a 2nd opinion.

Do you read every thread ?!? It's like trying to sneak by my parents when I was a teenager, I swear.... Thread drift, mea culpa.

Mea culpa. I should have recognized the thread drift and moved on.

Mea culpa - my own post was confusing there.

Mea culpa: poorly chosen word. "Healthy" is such a values laden word. I don't mean to call into question the idea that there's a public concept of 'healthy' or that it's a bad thing... just to point out that pragmatic vs moral is the axis that people use to argue their positions on economics and their opponents, shifting to the other foot when it makes sense to do so.

Doh. I thought you were talking about computer climate models... Oh, mea culpa - I screwed up. Let me answer this properly: "Now you're comparing tangible computer software with non tangible predictions." Software and ideas both live or die in a marketplace of ideas. The idea is that you set up a process so that good ideas succeed and bad ones die - this is called a meritocracy. Please review the peer review process and then get back to me. I'm sorry about this - I thought you were another poster, which is why I assumed you knew more about the process than you do. You're saying that the earth is not warming, which is just incorrect. TimG is foremost among the skeptics here and he believes the earth is warming, so I don't know what to say to you. You believe, I guess, that there's a worldwide conspiracy to cover up the real data. There's no other answer - if you don't believe the data. But... also... There's no evidence of any such plot.