Feds promoting discrimination

[Argus]

There is a difference between an expansive program of official bilingualism, like what seems to be the policy of the federal government right now, and a more limited policy, which I am in favour of. All this business with restrictive sign laws, government jobs disproportionately going to francophones, and ridiculous packaging requirements, I am totally opposed to. Those I would consider "expansive official bilingualism". What I am arguing for, a "limited official bilingualism", is that the federal government, governing a population with more than 20% francophones, should provide services in English where there is SIGNIFICANT DEMAND and in French where there is SIGNIFICANT DEMAND.

Holding a referendum in the rest of Canada on whether to keep Quebec in Canada is a good idea. I am sure it would be a victory for the keeping Quebec side, but it would give the people of English Canada a chance to express their opinion. It would confirm that Quebec is not the only voice to be heard in this debate over what Canada is.

I basically agree with all of the above. I think Francophones deserve to have service in their language where numbers warrant. I do NOT think they deserve to have virtually the entire upper echelon of government reserved for them, however.

[Sean Hayward]

I basically agree with all of the above. I think Francophones deserve to have service in their language where numbers warrant. I do NOT think they deserve to have virtually the entire upper echelon of government reserved for them, however.

Good. I agree with your comments. You have to remember that this situation of francophones getting disproportionate numbers of jobs in the federal government is a side issue and is not necessarily a consequence of official bilingualism.

[Leafless]

Good. I agree with your comments. You have to remember that this situation of francophones getting disproportionate numbers of jobs in the federal government is a side issue and is not necessarily a consequence of official bilingualism.

Would you kindly describe what exactly that "side issue" is?

IMO, official bilingualism equates to being francophone.

The principles of the 'Official Languages Act' is quite clear:

The purpose of the 1988 Official Languages Act(2) is to:

a. ensure respect for English and French as the official languages of Canada and ensure equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all federal institutions, in particular with respect to their use in parliamentary proceedings, in legislative and other instruments, in the administration of justice, in communicating with or providing services to the public and in carrying out the work of federal institutions;

b. support the development of English and French linguistic minority communities and generally advance the equality of status and use of the English and French languages within Canadian society; and

c. set out the powers, duties and functions of federal institutions with respect to the official languages of Canada. (3)

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/...s/prb0423-e.htm

What is 'Official Bilingualism' defined.

Officialdome will deny that the Official Languages Act amounts to affirmative action

http://www.languagefairness.org/Official_B...ism_Defined.php

[capricorn]

Would you kindly describe what exactly that "side issue" is?

What I would classify as a side issue is that too many jobs are designated "bilingual". If you were a francophone manager and wanted to surround yourself with other francophones (as often happens) you would do everything in your power to have as many positions classified bilingual as possible. Since most bilingual federal workers are francophones this automatically gives the advantage to francophones in the hiring and promotion process. This systemic dysfunction has been in operation since the 70s and would be very difficult to reverse. A full scale review of language designation should have been done some 20 years ago.

What needs to be done is an unbiased and independent review of the linguistic profiles of all positions, especially in the National Capital region. Such an exercise would be extremely expensive but it can be done. Politicians do not want to open this can of worms as it would be very expensive and divisive, and there is a strong possibility it would affect the morale of public servants.

Another factor to consider is how would the federal unions respond on behalf of their membership. That's another aspect that spooks politicians.

[Argus]

Good. I agree with your comments. You have to remember that this situation of francophones getting disproportionate numbers of jobs in the federal government is a side issue and is not necessarily a consequence of official bilingualism.

I don't think of this as a side issue, and I don't think it was unintended. The expansion of bilingualism, especially the one which said all employees have the right to work in the language of their choice, was instituted by French Quebecers, and I do not think they were unaware of the certain consequences. As far back as Trudeau's day he made it plain by stating openly that even under the less intensive bilingualism requirements he put in place unilingual English public servants would see their careers frozen and their hopes for advancement crumble. That was BEFORE the language of work rules put in place under Chretien made things far, far worse, andbefore the management bilingualism decrees and the elimination of language training and "Non imperative" bilingualism.

[Argus]

What needs to be done is an unbiased and independent review of the linguistic profiles of all positions, especially in the National Capital region. Such an exercise would be extremely expensive but it can be done. Politicians do not want to open this can of worms as it would be very expensive and divisive,

You got that right. One of Harper's MPs had the gall to say the bilingualism requirements were unfair to English public servants and the Liberals were instantly screaming and pulling their hair out in the House crying bigotry and racism, and Harper distanced himself from the statement and disciplined him for saying it.

and there is a strong possibility it would affect the morale of public servants.

Nobody gives a crap about that. And it's not like it could get any worse than it is anyway.

Another factor to consider is how would the federal unions respond on behalf of their membership. That's another aspect that spooks politicians.

Are you kidding? The president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada - the main federal union, can barely speak English. She completely supports official bilingualism.

[capricorn]

The president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada - the main federal union, can barely speak English. She completely supports official bilingualism.

Argus, Nycole Turmel is no longer PSAC president. She did not run in the last election. You're right her English was terrible. John Gordon is president.

See the list of elected officers:

http://www.psac.com/about/elected/elected-e.shtml

[Sean Hayward]

I don't think of this as a side issue, and I don't think it was unintended. The expansion of bilingualism, especially the one which said all employees have the right to work in the language of their choice, was instituted by French Quebecers, and I do not think they were unaware of the certain consequences. As far back as Trudeau's day he made it plain by stating openly that even under the less intensive bilingualism requirements he put in place unilingual English public servants would see their careers frozen and their hopes for advancement crumble. That was BEFORE the language of work rules put in place under Chretien made things far, far worse, andbefore the management bilingualism decrees and the elimination of language training and "Non imperative" bilingualism.

Yes, but my point is that we can have official bilingualism, as I have stated my support for it, without all this additional nonsense about packaging requirements and affirmative action for francophones. Those are not necessary consequences of official bilingualism. To me, official bilingualism means providing services in both languages, and allowing both languages to be used in Parliament and the courts. That can be done without all of the expansive federal programs that many English-speaking Canadians, myself included, are opposed to.

[Leafless]

To me, official bilingualism means providing services in both languages, and allowing both languages to be used in Parliament and the courts. That can be done without all of the expansive federal programs that many English-speaking Canadians, myself included, are opposed to.

You are making a nonsensical statement.

Promoting services in both languages was never the only criteria of official bilingualism.

It was establishing all aspects of the french culture throughout federal entities and the federal promotion of this french culture throughout Canada.

This is why official bilingualism and its promotion is so discriminatory.

Edited March 30, 2008 by Leafless

[Sean Hayward]

You are making a nonsensical statement.

Promoting services in both languages was never the only criteria of official bilingualism.

It was establishing all aspects of the french culture throughout federal entities and the federal promotion of this french culture throughout Canada.

This is why official bilingualism and its promotion is so discriminatory.

Can you explain how my statement is nonsensical? No, of course not, that's not the way you do things. We will never be able to come to any kind of agreement until you accept that official bilingualism can be implemented to different levels. Apparently you think that giving even an inch to official bilingualism means having french packaging and English-speakers being pushed out of federal jobs. I am trying to show you that we can have official bilingualism without that, limited official bilingualism. If you want to see what limited official bilingualism means, read sections 16-23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Official bilingualism to the level described there and no further is what I support. Read those sections and then, if you oppose anything contained in them, state your specific concerns.

[Leafless]

If you want to see what limited official bilingualism means, read sections 16-23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Sections 16-23 is dictatorial, offensive, discriminatory and undemocratic.

Do you not realize that there was never no national consensus (referendum) relating to designating french as an official language.

Do you realize that the only de-facto majority language utilized in Canada is the English language.

Official bilingualism to the level described there and no further is what I support. Read those sections and then, if you oppose anything contained in them, state your specific concerns.

I don't support official bilingualism.

And you are supporting the dictatorial, offensive, discriminatory undemocratic propagtion of the french culture/language .

Section 16-3, states: "Nothing in this Charter limits the authority of Parliament or a legislature to advance the equality of status or use of English and French."

Obviously this section allows the federal government to do what it feels like doing, relating to advancing the equality of status or use of English and (or) French, which in my book is totally unacceptable, as the emphasis is on the french culture/language and is designed to oppress majority English language domination.

[Sean Hayward]

OK I can see now that we will never agree because of your hardline attitude and your "dictatorial, offensive, discriminatory, undemocratic" comments. You say there was no national consensus on official bilingualism. True, there was no referendum. However, the federal government and the governments of nine out of ten of the provinces did support the Constitution Act, 1982, including it's provisions regarding official bilingualism. I realize that the majority language of Canada is English. To use that as a reason that the federal government should only use English as it's language of operation is like saying that global organizations should only operate in Mandarin because it's the most used language of the world. There has to be recognition for regional languages that, while not having a majority of speakers overall, have a majority of speakers in some regions. Can you please explain how you think having English as the sole official language of a country with over 20% of it's population primarily speaking French is fair? I understand your opposition to these federal programs to push the French culture on the rest of Canada, but how can you disagree with the most basic equality of the English and French languages in Canada?

[Argus]

Argus, Nycole Turmel is no longer PSAC president. She did not run in the last election. You're right her English was terrible. John Gordon is president.

See the list of elected officers:

http://www.psac.com/about/elected/elected-e.shtml

It'd be nice if the nominal members of the union were informed about "elections". Not that I expect to be allowed to, you know, vote or anything, but it'd be nice to be kept informed.

[Leafless]

You say there was no national consensus on official bilingualism. True, there was no referendum. However, the federal government and the governments of nine out of ten of the provinces did support the Constitution Act, 1982, including it's provisions regarding official bilingualism.

So, you are reminding me that not only the federal government failed to support democratic initiatives but that the provincial governments also failed to support democratic initiatives via referendums.

On top of this Quebec the province 'official bilingualism' was created for, chose not to support official bilingualism, in which case the whole concept of official bilingualism should have been scrapped.

Abusing federal and provincial legislative powers is no way to run a democratic country.

I realize that the majority language of Canada is English. To use that as a reason that the federal government should only use English as it's language of operation is like saying that global organizations should only operate in Mandarin because it's the most used language of the world.

English is the free flowing majority language of Canada, it was NEVER dictated. Canadians chose to use it for reasons you and Quebecers do not understand.

There has to be recognition for regional languages that, while not having a majority of speakers overall, have a majority of speakers in some regions.

I suppose your correct if you happen to be communist.

Can you please explain how you think having English as the sole official language of a country with over 20% of it's population primarily speaking French is fair?

It has nothing to do with being fair but has to do with the acceptance of social equality, an area Canadians were never given the opportunity to express whether they accept this FLAWED social concept or rejected this FLAWED social concept.

I understand your opposition to these federal programs to push the French culture on the rest of Canada, but how can you disagree with the most basic equality of the English and French languages in Canada?

I do not believe in communism and do not support unilateral, dictatorial, discriminatory FLAWED social equality government policies.

[Sean Hayward]

This is ridiculous. There are so many self-contradictions and desperate twists of logic in your post that I find it hard to respond. You try to smear my arguments by calling them communist and undemocratic. There is clearly no link between communism and official bilingualism, and if you think something done by the elected representatives of the Canadian people is undemocratic, then I have serious questions about your rationality. I am not opposed to allowing the people to express their will via referendums, and I think the people would agree with myself on official bilingualism, but it's fine if they don't and I would accept the results. I think your insistence on a referendum is not based on a desire for democracy, but instead on a desperate hope that people like you could use it too further your agenda. You contradict yourself by saying that official bilingualism should be scrapped without the support of the Quebec government. Your contradiction is as follows: you say Quebec shouldn't be given any special treatment and you say that official bilingualism amounts to special treatment for Quebec, and then you say that Quebec should be able to cancel official bilingualism unilaterally (clearly a special treatment). How is this an abuse of legislative powers? You said "English is the free flowing majority language of Canada, it was NEVER dictated. Canadians chose to use it for reasons you and Quebecers do not understand." This is such a flawed statement for so many reasons. What do you mean by free flowing language? You seem to think that English has some special qualities that distinguish it and make it the "chosen language" for all people to speak. I understand why most Canadians speak English, it is the same reason that most Quebecers speaker French, because it is the language that their parents spoke and the language they grew up using, and the language that the society has used in the past and continues to use as an expression of identity and community. I cannot possibly express my frustration at your comment that you are a communist if you believe regional languages should continue to exist. I would say you are closer to communism (more of an economic ideology than a social ideology anyway) if you think other people should be forced to use English rather than their preferred regional language. That way of thinking seems a lot more like social engineering than official bilingualism to me.

"I do not believe in communism and do not support unilateral, dictatorial, discriminatory FLAWED social equality government policies." Good. Neither do I. Now can you please answer the questions rather than throwing out ridiculous smear attempts?

[Leafless]

This is ridiculous. There are so many self-contradictions and desperate twists of logic in your post that I find it hard to respond. You try to smear my arguments by calling them communist and undemocratic. There is clearly no link between communism and official bilingualism, and if you think something done by the elected representatives of the Canadian people is undemocratic, then I have serious questions about your rationality.

The total lack of MP representation relating to this issue is proof the federal government approves of oppressive state control of culture.

So far you have NOT supported any of your arguments with substance or fact and failed to provide proof to support your flawed reasoning.

I am not opposed to allowing the people to express their will via referendums, and I think the people would agree with myself on official bilingualism, but it's fine if they don't and I would accept the results. I think your insistence on a referendum is not based on a desire for democracy, but instead on a desperate hope that people like you could use it too further your agenda.

What AGENDA?

You contradict yourself by saying that official bilingualism should be scrapped without the support of the Quebec government. Your contradiction is as follows: you say Quebec shouldn't be given any special treatment and you say that official bilingualism amounts to special treatment for Quebec, and then you say that Quebec should be able to cancel official bilingualism unilaterally (clearly a special treatment).

I said the federal government should have have scrapped the concept of official bilingualism ( and all other rights relating to Quebec) intially when Quebec FAILED to ratify the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as an ammendment to our original constitution.

How is this an abuse of legislative powers?

Relating to ratifying the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the federal and provincial governments of Canada chose to overide the opinions of Canadians in favour of utilizing their legislative powers to enforce the views of government.

This is abusing governments legislative authority in a democratic society.

ou said "English is the free flowing majority language of Canada, it was NEVER dictated. Canadians chose to use it for reasons you and Quebecers do not understand." This is such a flawed statement for so many reasons.

What are your reasons ?

What do you mean by free flowing language?

A language simply chosen by the large majority to be the language of commerce and everyday use.

This English language forms the linguistic backbone to both Canada and the U.S. due to obvious historical reasons, that you and Quebec refuse to acknowledge.

ou seem to think that English has some special qualities that distinguish it and make it the "chosen language" for all people to speak.

Yes, it is the inherited British language from the victors that won this country and gave us our constitution.

Iunderstand why most Canadians speak English, it is the same reason that most Quebecers speaker French, because it is the language that their parents spoke and the language they grew up using, and the language that the society has used in the past and continues to use as an expression of identity and community.

The only reason Quebecers speak French TO-DAY is because of massive federal support that allow Quebecers to use this obsolete language, that also allow them to DISCRIMINATE against the English language in Quebec.

possibly express my frustration at your comment that you are a communist if you believe regional languages should continue to exist. I would say you are closer to communism (more of an economic ideology than a social ideology anyway) if you think other people should be forced to use English rather than their preferred regional language. That way of thinking seems a lot more like social engineering than official bilingualism to me.

Nobody forces Canadians to speak the English language.

The majority of Canadians chose to speak it including for the advancement of the English speaking culture.

People use the English language for many reasons including its compatibility with the language of the U.S.A., you know the country that keeps us abreast in every field known to mankind.

Edited April 1, 2008 by Leafless

[Sean Hayward]

The total lack of MP representation relating to this issue is proof the federal government approves of oppressive state control of culture.

So far you have NOT supported any of your arguments with substance or fact and failed to provide proof to support your flawed reasoning.

What AGENDA?

I said the federal government should have have scrapped the concept of official bilingualism ( and all other rights relating to Quebec) intially when Quebec FAILED to ratify the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as an ammendment to our original constitution.

Relating to ratifying the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the federal and provincial governments of Canada chose to overide the opinions of Canadians in favour of utilizing their legislative powers to enforce the views of government.

This is abusing governments legislative authority in a democratic society.

What are your reasons ?

A language simply chosen by the large majority to be the language of commerce and everyday use.

This English language forms the linguistic backbone to both Canada and the U.S. due to obvious historical reasons, that you and Quebec refuse to acknowledge.

Yes, it is the inherited British language from the victors that won this country and gave us our constitution.

The only reason Quebecers speak French TO-DAY is because of massive federal support that allow Quebecers to use this obsolete language, that also allow them to DISCRIMINATE against the English language in Quebec.

Nobody forces Canadians to speak the English language.

The majority of Canadians chose to speak it including for the advancement of the English speaking culture.

People use the English language for many reasons including its compatibility with the language of the U.S.A., you know the country that keeps us abreast in every field known to mankind.

Thank you for a considered response without any insults or accusations of communism, dictatorship, etc. I don't think official bilingualism amounts to state control of culture in any way more than any other government policy. I believe I have supported my arguments with substance and you may not acknowledge that, but my previous posts contain much supporting reasoning for official bilingualism. The agenda I am referring to is the English-only agenda among some Canadians outside Quebec, an agenda which seeks to eliminate the use of French in Canada through policies such as making English the sole official language of Canada. I understand your position on the non-ratification of the Constitution by Quebec, but I profoundly disagree with it. By the way, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that no provincial consent was legally required for the patriation of the Constitution. Do you have any evidence to suggest that the Canadian people are, or were, strongly opposed to the patriation of the Constitution? I agree that English is the linguistic backbone of most of Canada, but I also believe that French is the linguistic backbone of Quebec, a significant part of Canada. There is no evidence to suggest that the French language is still widely used in Quebec only as a result of official bilingualism. Here are the facts: the British established rule in Quebec in 1763; official bilingualism was introduced by the federal government in 1968. That means that French existed as the dominant language in Quebec for 205 years without official bilingualism. Indeed, the policies of the British government in the century or so following their conquest of Quebec were designed towards assimilation of the Quebecois, and the replacement of French as the primary language of Quebec, with English. You have to realize that the Quebecois feel the same attachment to the French language and its associated culture as you feel towards that English language and its associated culture. English is not the "chosen language". Each people/nation has the right to maintain its historical identity.

[Leafless]

Thank you for a considered response without any insults or accusations of communism, dictatorship, etc.

You do not have to thank me as FACTS speak for themselves.

I don't think official bilingualism amounts to state control of culture in any way more than any other government policy.

In a democratic society, culture is NOT mandated as a policy of any kind.

I believe I have supported my arguments with substance and you may not acknowledge that, but my previous posts contain much supporting reasoning for official bilingualism.

Your arguments consisted of personal opinion and asking questions.

The agenda I am referring to is the English-only agenda among some Canadians outside Quebec, an agenda which seeks to eliminate the use of French in Canada through policies such as making English the sole official language of Canada.

English is already the 'de facto' language of Canada.

English requires NO official designation.

I understand your position on the non-ratification of the Constitution by Quebec, but I profoundly disagree with it. By the way, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that no provincial consent was legally required for the patriation of the Constitution.

You are confusing the issue with ammending the repatriated constitution that does does require provincial consent.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that the Canadian people are, or were, strongly opposed to the patriation of the Constitution?

Your question is a nonsensical and offensive one as Canadians were never informed at the time exactly what the Liberals wanted to do with the repatriated constitution.

I agree that English is the linguistic backbone of most of Canada, but I also believe that French is the linguistic backbone of Quebec, a significant part of Canada. There is no evidence to suggest that the French language is still widely used in Quebec only as a result of official bilingualism. Here are the facts: the British established rule in Quebec in 1763; official bilingualism was introduced by the federal government in 1968. That means that French existed as the dominant language in Quebec for 205 years without official bilingualism.

Quebec wants nothing to do with official bilingualism and is another reason official bilingualism and its promotion federally, should be scrapped.

To this day there is not an official bilingualism policy in the entire province of Quebec. Why should the rest of Canada or the federal government kiss Quebec's butt?

Indeed, the policies of the British government in the century or so following their conquest of Quebec were designed towards assimilation of the Quebecois, and the replacement of French as the primary language of Quebec, with English.

And why not, as the French in quebec were now British citizens.

But this was never accomplished as there were not enough British immigrants willing to settle in Quebec and is one of the main reasons the British gave Quebec the Quebec Act.

You have to realize that the Quebecois feel the same attachment to the French language and its associated culture as you feel towards that English language and its associated culture. English is not the "chosen language". Each people/nation has the right to maintain its historical identity.

Sorry, English is the chosen language (and still is) before Trudeau doctored the BNA Act without a NATIONAL REFERENDUM and created official languages that are only recognized federally and NOT provincially.

BTW- A single long paragraph (story) is not the normal way of posting.

Use the quote function and cite proof to back your statements.

[Sean Hayward]

I will try to respond to your points reasonably without resorting to the kind of misinformation that you use regularly. "Facts speak for themselves" - that's the basis of my argument. I was not thanking you for presenting facts or admitting my defeat as you seem to think, I was thanking you for not using ridiculous smear tactics, as you seem prone to do. OFFICIAL BILINGUALISM IS NOT MANDATING CULTURE. I can not say that any more clearly. Maybe you have not read what I am supporting in my previous posts. There is nothing in sections 16-23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that mandates culture. Of course my arguments consist of personal opinion, any argument is founded on an opinion and supported by facts. I ask questions to try to establish whether there is any factual or reasonable basis for your comments. I don't understand your position. You say English requires no official designation and yet you say English should be the sole official language. I am not confusing the issue of the patriation of the Constitution. Maybe you are not as well informed as I on this issue, but the Supreme Court ruled, in the Patriation Reference and the Quebec Veto Reference, that NO provincial consent was required for the federal government to request that the British Parliament modify the Constitution. I understand that amendments now require provincial consent, but that was not the case before patriation. Do you have any evidence to suggest that the Canadian people are, or were, strongly opposed to the patriation of the Constitution? This is about as simple as I can phrase the question, and yet you say it is nonsenical. I assume that your response means that your real answer is no. I simply reject the assertion that official bilingualism is "kissing Quebec's butt". There are French-speaking Canadians outside of Quebec too, as well as English-speaking Canadians in Quebec. My point is that the Quebecois were not assimilated and did not start speaking English even when there was no protection for French and the British were specifically trying to assimiliate them. You clearly don't understand the basic concept of official languages. You say that the official languages are not recognized provincially. There is no significance of non-recognition or implicit non-recognition by the provinces. The federal government has its own official languages, and the provincial governments have their own official language(s). The basic difference between you and I on this issue is that you believe that English should be spoken by everyone, and I believe that people should be able to continue using the language of their specific community. I think your position would be quite different if English-speaking Canadians were a minority, and French was the "de facto language" of Canada.

BTW - I couldn't care less what you think the normal way of posting is. I have presented proof in the form of current and historical evidence, a great deal more proof than you have cared to mention.

[Leafless]

BTW - I couldn't care less what you think the normal way of posting is. I have presented proof in the form of current and historical evidence, a great deal more proof than you have cared to mention.

Unless you cite proof to back your unsubstantiated claims, it is viwed as nothing more than personal opinion.

Have a nice day and better luck with your posting in the future.

[Sean Hayward]

This must be a joke. You are accusing me of putting out pure opinion without any factual basis, while you have not only failed to provide anything more than anecdotal evidence to support your arguments, but you have also not acknowledged my supporting facts. I have provided evidence and I am sorry if you can't understand that. You are, at best, a hypocrite. This debate didn't go the way you wanted and you will have to accept that. Unlike you, I don't need luck to prove my arguments.

[guyser]

This must be a joke.

You could stop there I suppose. Go nail jello to the wall, it is easier.

[Leafless]

This must be a joke. You are accusing me of putting out pure opinion without any factual basis, while you have not only failed to provide anything more than anecdotal evidence to support your arguments, but you have also not acknowledged my supporting facts.

Sorry, but you cannot even post in a coherent manner.

I have provided evidence and I am sorry if you can't understand that.

Evidence, your word not mine, requires proof.

Now, where is your proof?

Start all over again with your minority opinions in, point form, citing proof.

[M.Dancer]

Sorry, but you cannot even post in a coherent manner.****

Evidence, your word not mine, requires proof.***

Now, where is your proof?

Start all over again with your minority opinions in, point form, citing proof.

***I generally read leafless for the ironic humour

[Oleg Bach]

Sorry, but you cannot even post in a coherent manner.

Evidence, your word not mine, requires proof.

Now, where is your proof?

Start all over again with your minority opinions in, point form, citing proof.

That reminds me of the sneaky kid in public school that would steal your colletable hockey cards. When demanding your property back..he would ham out the phrase "prove it!" - I see this all over the net ...everyone wants proof...you are either a statesman making statements or you are just a wimpy one that demands proof repeadly but has no original thought of their own to contribute. If you are intuative you can tell who knows what they are talking about and who constantly seeks the miracle and magic of proof. I have found that people who demand proof are very lawyerish and imagine themselves as privledged judges...as I know and some of you do know only crooks constantly demand proof of the evident truth.