Should Canada give up on its failing Forces....

[Guest eureka]

Get a sense of humour or don't correspond at a distance.

[shackwacky]

eureka Posted on Dec 17 2004, 02:42 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It might be for remedial reading and comprehension for courses some of our posters so that they can participate in the political culture. 

That was a joke? You must be a gas at parties.

snob ( P ) Pronunciation Key (snb)

n.

One who tends to patronize, rebuff, or ignore people regarded as social inferiors and imitate, admire, or seek association with people regarded as social superiors.

One who affects an offensive air of self-satisfied superiority in matters of taste or intellect.

[Guest eureka]

How old are you?

[Greg]

He's surely old enough to realize that you are indeed being a snob.

Cut this patronizing talk out.

Greg

[Argus]

So those that answered No, are all in favour of the Senate's recommendations (to save our armed forces), an immediate increase of four billion dollars to the annual budget of DND?

I most certainly am. I don't believe it is neccesary in the long run, if the CAF were to be run properly (fat chance), but regardless of reforms the forces have been run down so far they need a drastic cash infusion.

[Argus]

KK!

Apply for a Canada Council grant! Your desire becomes you but you don't represent the reality of the artistic world.

Actually, he does. I too am a writer. I have writen novels, and sold several. Sorry to say this does not make me a wealthy man. I have a regular job, and the writing is a sideline. The reality of the publishing world is that of small books written by ordinary men and women. They don't become rich and famous from them. That kind of thing happens through a combination of luck, marketing and timing.

Canada Council grants? Uhm, first of all, the grant process is terrifically incestuous. The artistic elites favour each other, and if you don't go to their parties and events, and don't know them, fat chance you have of getting a cent. Also, your work has to pretty much be recognized as unmarketable. If the book he's writing can be categorized in some way as likely to be "popular" he can forget a grant. Now if he wants to write a book on, say, the affect of mainstream patriarchal oppression on disabled Ethiopian lesbian immigrants to Canada - well hey, he'll get that grant for sure!

And no, that's not sour grapes talking. I never once considered asking for, or even looking into how to ask for a grant. I write popular fiction. The snobs on the arts boards turn up their noses at such stuff.

As for threats to Canada - the funny thing about such things is you don't see them coming. They just pop up out of nowhere. Now according to our military it is going to take them 5 years to increase the size of the infrantry by 5,000 people. That gives you some kind of indication of how long it takes to build a military from scratch.

[Argus]

I have to say this is the most schizophrenic thread I've ever been involved in.

On "art". Too much modern art, to be honest, is talentless sludge. Canada's artists and writers, for the most part, are what I call 'welfare artists and writers", people of little talent who live like leeches off the government. Their work is admired by no one but themselves, and if bought by the government either sits in a dark store room or is mocked and ridiculed by the people who have been forced to pay for it - the people.

Real art inspires and communicates ideas and emotions. Little of that takes place among Canadian "artists". Canada's publishers work mainly through grants. They publish very little fiction unless it is through grants. Biographies, histories, how-to books, textbooks, that sort of thing is what they mainly put out.

Practically speaking, why should I be forced - and remember when you talk of taxes you are talking about the people paying them - why should I, who will never attend the ballet, be forced to pay money for it? Or for opera, to use another example? I don't like opera. Why am I forced to pay? Who attends ballets and opera? Mostly upper middle class and upper class "cultured" people. Let them pay for it then.

[Argus]

The Canada Council for the Arts will get $25 million from the program that helps promote budding and established talent, culture on the Internet and Canadian artists overseas.

Does anyone know what promoting culture on the internet might be?

Web sites nobody will visit, containing art, poetry and stories nobody is interested in.

[Guest eureka]

That does it for me. I will not be chided for the ill manners or super sensivity of others.

[Argus]

That does it for me. I will not be chided for the ill manners or super sensivity of others.

The only ill manners were yours. Frankly, too many people here continue to attack the person who makes an argument rather than addressing the points of the argument. I admit to being guilty of this myself on occasion, though usually when provoked.

We are all human, but the ideal we should strive for is to speak to the point, not question the morality, intelligence, age, or values of those making the point. Insult the argument all you want, I suppose, but not the one who makes it.

[Guest eureka]

I attacked no one, Argus, and you, if you do have the intelligence that your posts sometimes show, know it.

There are a number of highly intelligent and informed posters on this forum. It has been a pleasure to argue with and to read them. There are also a growing number of the insecure, self-important, and immature. That is unfortunate

They ruin it.

[Argus]

I attacked no one, Argus, and you, if you do have the intelligence that your posts sometimes show, know it.

There are a number of highly intelligent and informed posters on this forum. It has been a pleasure to argue with and to read them. There are also a growing number of the insecure, self-important, and immature. That is unfortunate

They ruin it.

I wasn't referring to you specifically, just to the general habit of questioning those who make arguments rather than the arguments. I wouldn't call asking how old he was, and telling him to get a sense of humour a particularly nasty attack. But they came in two consecutive one-line responses which were obviously only aimed at him rather than his argument. Where do you think the discussion was headed?

If you consider the rules of formal debates you'd realize that even that is way over the line. Another way of looking at it is to imagine you are seated at a bar or restaurant and discussing something with another person, an adult, whom you really don't know. "How old are you?" coming after a statement of his you disliked could hardly be considered anything but bald faced rudeness and confrontation.

The best and only way to avoid immature people when discussing political issues is a moderated site which, among other things, forbids personal insults. I think that generally the moderator here is fairly relaxed. Though being human he is a tad unpredictable. I was told to "fuck off and die" on a thread last week without, to my knowledge, drawing a response, after all.

[shackwacky]

Eureka....I am 40 years old.

The nasty attack was not the question about my age, or the suggestion that I get a sense of humor. It was the implication that I (or someone like me) was beneath you in terms of intelligence or culture.

I am not going to post my education and business history, that would be tacky. Suffice to say I have both, and I am not the uneducated, culture-deficient hick that you would like to believe. I have a fairly good grasp of the issues, but my typing skills are hampered by having only one hand ), and I tend to try to "one paragraph" things when perhaps I should take the time to type out my ideas more clearly.

For whatever reason, you and I have been on the wrong foot since I joined here. I am guilty as well of taking any opportunity to make a point against you, and for that I apologize. In the future I will try to stay off your back if you will offer to do likewise.

I have noticed that most of the members here, if they consider a post to be irrelevant or inconsequential, generally ignore the poster and continue on with their discussions. Maybe this is one way you could deal with the growing number of insecure, self-important and immature (read: me) posters here. That way we don't "ruin" it for you.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

think that generally the moderator here is fairly relaxed. Though being human he is a tad unpredictable. I was told to "fuck off and die" on a thread last week without, to my knowledge, drawing a response

I noticed that too, and was also surprised. I do believe Greg is in the middle of his 'Master's Thesis' and does not have the time to moderate 'at will', only intermittently.

[Argus]

I am not going to post my education and business history, that would be tacky. Suffice to say I have both, and I am not the uneducated, culture-deficient hick that you would like to believe. I have a fairly good grasp of the issues, but my typing skills are hampered by having only one hand ), and I tend to try to "one paragraph" things when perhaps I should take the time to type out my ideas more clearly.

I realize it's difficult, normally, to find a way to introduce that sort of information into a discussion. And in a way it shouldn't matter. But it does. We can't see each other here. We can't hear each other. The only impression we get of others is reading them. If their writing skills appear to be very poor that can give us a misleading impression of the intelligence or education of the person we're debating.

Should that matter? Perhaps not but it tends to. Knowing someone has only one hand, or that they're working in their second - or third language, tends to immediately remove that sort of doubt. Spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors can be ignored (not simply not mentioned, but ignored in ones mind) when we know these sorts of things.

[RB]

theloniusfleabag Posted on Dec 19 2004, 10:45 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Argus,

think that generally the moderator here is fairly relaxed. Though being human he is a tad unpredictable. I was told to "fuck off and die" on a thread last week without, to my knowledge, drawing a response

I noticed that too, and was also surprised. I do believe Greg is in the middle of his 'Master's Thesis' and does not have the time to moderate 'at will', only intermittently.

c’mon folks, lighten up. I thought I had explained the outburst sufficiently, and that the obscenities issue is closed. Well, I readily admit obscenities are errors in judgement, and are not fit for this forum.

Unless, of course, you are rather inspired and impassioned and imitating Richler. Conveniently for language, I am prone to contemporary literary.

But, I must confess I don’t know anyone on the board, and that I don’t know our anonymous Argus and vice-versa. And as such I don't believe anyone has a right to mock or mar, nor demean others. I mean the little bits of insights of truths is not the only necessary ingredient to prejudge and shape a person "write" before our eyes. So its not like Argus will redeem any self-importance, social status or otherwise even if he is now bargaining for some consolations and perhaps succeeds.

On pondering this I can further maintain, that my expression of outburst deserves no protection so I am a bit weary of all of this nonsense.

I digress.

I am afraid I am so stack with profanity, sufficiently enough that it makes even me *blush*, and so I thought I had better take the opportunity of the cool weather to chill.

So good riddance to me – and a safe and happy holidays to you folks

[August1991]

c’mon folks, lighten up.

My reaction too. Otherwise, an interesting thread.

[the jester]

Perhaps the solution is as simple as modifying where forces are used. If the matter is not enough equipment and supplies, perhaps our strategies need to be reassessed. Are the supplies, as limited as they are, being used in the right places?

[Army Guy]

You'll have to excuse me for not knowing all the forum lingo this is my first post. I'm a soldier in the Canadian Armed forces. This post caught my eye for obivious reasons.

I think before you ask what can be done to help DND, We should first ask the people of Canada what is it you want DND to do ?

It is really easy to make out a long and well thought out list of things or missions you would like to see DND to do or take on. But to do so we has Canadian tax payers will have to give up something, as money makes the world go round.

[Fortunata]

Army Guy, IMO DND should:

1. protect us domestically first, whether it be helping in emergency situations (fire, flood), protecting our northern sovereignty, patrolling our coastlines, patrolling our airspace.

2. peace keeping/making including a rapid response team

We need subs to patrol under the artic ice, ice breakers to patrol the waters, helicopters that don't fall down from the sky cause they are just too tired to fly, we need satellite capabilities to see what is approaching us from any direction. I could go on but I think you get my drift.

[caesar]

Fortunata; I generally agree with your ideas. The military should be first for self defense and trained to assist in natural or man made disasters. The Coast guard should be consider part of the military. We do need a navy to patrol our coasts. Not so sure that we would want subs for the north but ice cutters, an airforce and scatter forces in the North to observe.

As a peacekeeping force; we are part of a force of many nations. I don't think that in that capacity we need to supply all man power or equipment. As a small nation by population as are many other nations; for peacekeeping we should concentrate on one area of expertise and have the other smalled allies supply a different equipment or expertise. There is not much sense in banding together and each coming with our inadequate forces. This of course, can only be done with other stable nations.

[Fortunata]

Oh, I forgot to add airlift capability. Very important that.

[Fortunata]

Army Guy - what do you think of the proposed changes to the armed forces? Air force and Navy under and supporting the army and all new equipment geared towards that? In practical terms what does that mean for our waters and our airspace protections?

[Montgomery Burns]

Canada should have a stronger military. Totalitarians respect one thing - power.

I think that this has been part of the reason for the cooler relations between the Bush administration and Canada's Liberal Party.

Canada should up their percentage of GDP that goes to the military and quit pushing their responsibilty off on the Americans.

Plus Canada is a large country with a huge unprotected border to the south, and surrounded by sea to the east, west, and north. The country has lots of open borders to defend.

[Fortunata]

That the USA protects us is a fallacy that Americans like to spout to make them feel superior and Canadians-who-are-ashamed-to-be-Canadians spout because they'd say anything to put Canada down.

USA protects USA. That's all there is to it.

A couple of reasons why we haven't needed a huge military: Number uno, we really HAVE NO ENEMY COUNTRIES. We are not a big player, nor should we be. We have neither the population nor the resources to be one. Number duo, we have a relatively benign foreign policy that doesn't tread on other countries toes.

Still, I do not condone what successive governments (since Pearson) have done cutting military budgets to the bone.

Our sovereignty is important, esp. in the northern waters. Terrorist attacks are something that we should be planning for militarily. Coastal protections. Crisies due to natural disasters, both here and abroad.

Oh, and a repelling force to keep all those disgruntled Democrats on their side of the border.