"Scout" wrote in message
| Scout
| "All we've ever asked is that you let us come up and shoot a moose once in
a
| while."

Oh Yeah... first you block the softwood lumber... then the cows... but now
you want the Moose!!!???

Why would you want to come up here and decimate our wildlife... shooting a
majestic beast like the regal moose. The epitome of wilderness and freedom.
To kill for the sport of it... it sickens me! To destroy such a creature so
you can hang it's antlers in your lodge and brag to your friends on how
great a hunter you are... never mentioning it took 3 guides, a gun bearer, a
tanker of fuel, a plane and a high powered rifle fired from a safe location
100 yards away.

Come up with a knife and we'll dip you in moose musk.. then we'll cut you
loose in a corral with a Bull Moose in rut and see how you fare. ;-)

CM

If you feel it's an attack.... maybe you should try and understand why

* You are 100% correct! Yet we are also accused attacking, unprovoked, and
I don't hear many outside the U.S. offering us the same courtesy you
propose.

| don't believe Canada has come anywhere close in volume, regarding
| immigrants, nor has she had her infrastructure taxed to accommodate so
many
| so quickly, for so long.
On a per capita basis... that's not correct. I believe the opposite is
true.
*That's coming dangerously close to using statistics to prove something that
isn't obvious otherwise, and we all know what that ugly American Twain said
about that! What would you say is the Canadian equivalent to our Statue of
Liberty? When did this mass immigration happen? Why did so many Europeans
chose America over Canada?

Furthermore, the U.S. has paved the way for much of
| your established comforts and freedoms, in much the same way that union
| workers make life better for their non-union counterparts.

Pardon Me??? where the hell did you come by that notion? You established
nothing for us... we've done this and not at your discretion, nor
* You've heard the words "no man is an island?" Neither is Canada. What
happened next door to you sure as hell did have an effect on your own
political outcome. You may recall we served the same crown for a time. We
didn't care for it. We fought it. Canada is a better place for it.
Furthermore, I think England and France became better places for it. That's
my opinion, as I've stated previously, but I think I could develop that into
a fairly convincing and supported thesis. This is not a slight against
Canadians either, it's just the way things worked out.


Unions.... Bah! You're unions slipped in where if they hadn't..
other unions could have been formed in Canada.
I'm confused here, I was using labor unions as an analogy. I have seen first
hand, how non-union workers have enjoyed increased salary and benefits for
no other reason than to keep unions out of a work place. By that reasoning,
non-union workers reap the benefits of the union struggle, and all without
lifting so much as a finger. That pattern is not restricted to labor.


How can you be so ignorant of Canadian history. We've been a Commonwealth
Country since Inception. There was no revolution here. We appropriated the
BNA legally. We still have close ties with the British Crown.
* I could rephrase your question and say how can you be so ignorant of human
behavior?
I'm no expert on Canadian politics, but I'm not completely in the dark
either. What are you calling 'Inception?' 1867? Nearly 100 years after our
Revolution? My point being that the rule of the crown softened much after
the U.S. affair. For Canadians to remain under the rule of the crown until
1931, and not have full independence until that recently, is surely a sign
of a kinder, more gentle crown. Do you think they just woke up one morning
and decided to be nice to the colonists? That's like saying we have the
civil rights amendment here because we suddenly realized some Americans were
being treated unfairly. Sounds good, but it didn't happen that way.


Quebecois are out version of Americans... so in effect you can dish it
out
but not take it eh?
* Oh we can take it Baby! And don't kid yourself, you'd make a great
American! Hey, with all that drinking and pot-smoking, geez, you could be
one of my cousins!


No.. we don't want to do that... Americans are generally liked up here.
It's your collective behaviour that is a cause for concern. We feel quite
free to point it out to you.. and that's not based out of fear... it's
family.
* Likewise, I'm glad we share this common freedom! I've handed my own
brother much sharper criticism than I've offered here. I think, I hope, what
you are really saying is that you don't approve of our leaders, at least at
this point in time. As for most Americans, most are working too hard to feel
superior, or inferior for that matter, to anyone. I really think that
feeling is being projected unfairly onto us. I mean, if we felt superior
wouldn't we know we felt that way? Seems like it would be impossible to not
be conscious of it.

Actually, I don't hunt at all (I sail, motorcycle, and camp) and was just
making a hunting joke while remember all the guns you've described on your
own hunting/killing adventures!
--
Scout
"Knowing the storm is coming only makes me more nervous."


"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
...

"Scout" wrote in message
| Scout
| "All we've ever asked is that you let us come up and shoot a moose once
in
a
| while."

Oh Yeah... first you block the softwood lumber... then the cows... but
now
you want the Moose!!!???

Why would you want to come up here and decimate our wildlife... shooting a
majestic beast like the regal moose. The epitome of wilderness and
freedom.
To kill for the sport of it... it sickens me! To destroy such a creature
so
you can hang it's antlers in your lodge and brag to your friends on how
great a hunter you are... never mentioning it took 3 guides, a gun bearer,
a
tanker of fuel, a plane and a high powered rifle fired from a safe
location
100 yards away.

Come up with a knife and we'll dip you in moose musk.. then we'll cut you
loose in a corral with a Bull Moose in rut and see how you fare. ;-)

CM

"Scout" wrote in message
...

| * You are 100% correct! Yet we are also accused attacking, unprovoked,
and
| I don't hear many outside the U.S. offering us the same courtesy you
| propose.

Maybe they understand that America as a whole views courtesy with contempt.
If you step on their foot they won't ask you if you did it on purpose or
not.... they'll punch you and brag about it.




| *That's coming dangerously close to using statistics to prove something
that
| isn't obvious otherwise, and we all know what that ugly American Twain
said
| about that! What would you say is the Canadian equivalent to our Statue of
| Liberty? When did this mass immigration happen? Why did so many Europeans
| chose America over Canada?

Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades..... America invited
immigrants... Canada has never done so.

| * You've heard the words "no man is an island?" Neither is Canada. What
| happened next door to you sure as hell did have an effect on your own
| political outcome. You may recall we served the same crown for a time. We
| didn't care for it. We fought it. Canada is a better place for it.
| Furthermore, I think England and France became better places for it.
That's
| my opinion, as I've stated previously, but I think I could develop that
into
| a fairly convincing and supported thesis. This is not a slight against
| Canadians either, it's just the way things worked out.

I can concur with that viewpoint.... to a degree. Canada was never in the
same development situation as the USA. Our nation was formed on the
requirement of natural recourses and their supply to England. Our climate
made for much more difficulty in development and I doubt the effect of your
revolution had as much impact on the way we were governed as you might wish
to believe.

| I'm confused here, I was using labor unions as an analogy. I have seen
first
| hand, how non-union workers have enjoyed increased salary and benefits for
| no other reason than to keep unions out of a work place. By that
reasoning,
| non-union workers reap the benefits of the union struggle, and all without
| lifting so much as a finger. That pattern is not restricted to labor.

It's probably due to my experience with regimes that demand blind patriotism
from their members and promote a blind hatred and defined roles to the
exclusion of common sense and freedom of choice. Unions had their time and
place... but frankly.. as I've stated at a union meeting before. we could
get better bargaining and accounting of our dues if we hired a legal firm to
negotiate the contracts instead of red neck, ignorant, uneducated idiots
with personal agendas and links to organized crime.

| * I could rephrase your question and say how can you be so ignorant of
human
| behavior?

The problems with being an optimist...

| I'm no expert on Canadian politics, but I'm not completely in the dark
| either. What are you calling 'Inception?' 1867? Nearly 100 years after
our
| Revolution?

Yes

My point being that the rule of the crown softened much after
| the U.S. affair. For Canadians to remain under the rule of the crown until
| 1931, and not have full independence until that recently, is surely a sign
| of a kinder, more gentle crown. Do you think they just woke up one
morning
| and decided to be nice to the colonists? That's like saying we have the
| civil rights amendment here because we suddenly realized some Americans
were
| being treated unfairly. Sounds good, but it didn't happen that way.

Not really... the factors cannot be corralled into such a narrow POW. France
was on the side lines and willing to take over the riches offered by this
country. The British Empire had to keep Canada if only to stem the growth of
the USA. I doubt it was the kinder gentler diplomacy that resulted from your
revolution.

| * Oh we can take it Baby! And don't kid yourself, you'd make a great
| American! Hey, with all that drinking and pot-smoking, geez, you could be
| one of my cousins!

You're not the first person who has said that about me. I've always admired
the self confidence exhibited by Americans.

| * Likewise, I'm glad we share this common freedom! I've handed my own
| brother much sharper criticism than I've offered here. I think, I hope,
what
| you are really saying is that you don't approve of our leaders, at least
at
| this point in time.

Keep in mind it's the nation that elects the Leaders.... I don't approve of
your direction as a nation.

As for most Americans, most are working too hard to feel
| superior, or inferior for that matter, to anyone. I really think that
| feeling is being projected unfairly onto us. I mean, if we felt superior
| wouldn't we know we felt that way? Seems like it would be impossible to
not
| be conscious of it.

It's called blind patriotism and I doubt if you were raised under it you
would be aware of it's effects on others ... let alone yourself. To raise a
point... during the tall ships festival here in Halifax there were many
boats from all over the world. All displayed their Flags of origin. The
American vessel had a flag that was huge in comparison... I'm talking a
third the size of the boat. The impression from a seven year old on my
boat.... "Who the heck do they think they are flying a flag that big...
this is Canada not the States and they're just being rude by showing off"
he was very upset.. with no prompting from the adults!

CM

"Capt. Mooron" wrote:

It's pathetic you have even one state like that let alone a bible belt....
isn't the separation of church & state part of your basic governmental
basis?

Trouble is most Americans, and most Canadians, et al, believe in "GOD".
Even my own kin. Point out that the original creation myth upon which
Genesis is based describes a group called Elohim, of which their god,
YHWH was neither the first nor most powerful even if the myth were true,
and they'll blink and ignore it just like they ignore the rest of
reality. How many Americans, Canadians, or whatever understand that this
"GOD" and Allah are one and the same - the GOD of Abraham? And that his
story arguably describes the best practical joke ever pulled. Go read it
yourself. Run out of UR, Abie marries his sister and gets rich pullung
the old Badger Scam. Then one noonday GOD comes trudging across the
desert on his way to check on rumors and when Abie finds that GOD
intends to smite his slums he does some serious haggling - jews GOD
himself down from 50 to 5 then can't produce! So GOD promises him all
the land between the rivers if (get this) he'll cut off the end of his
dick! And Abie agrees! And that joke is the basis for Judism,
Christianity and Islam! Jeeze, half y'all prolly had *your* dicks cut!
Given that level of simian intellect, is it any wonder we see wild eyed
fanatics everywhere?

What kind of test is it that you only have to miss one word to fail??

CM

"Marc" wrote in message
...
| Case in Point. I failed a sixth grade spelling test because I
| misspelled "does". My mother, at the time, used a laundry detergent
| brand named DUZ.
|
|
| On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 14:16:34 -0400, "Scout"
| wrote:
|
| Frank,
| Even with all the outrageous expectations placed on schools, they still
find
| time to do some serious and legitimate research. Take it or leave it,
here
| is some insight that the English teacher may have left out.
| There is overwhelming evidence (formal educational research) which
strongly
| suggests that teaching the conventions of English (spelling, grammar,
etc.)
| does not work, simply because it is taken out of context. Translation,
| students (people) learn the rules of a language much more effectively by
| exposure to others who use it correctly (i.e., via reading).
| Memorizing rules does not make significantly better writers. Reading well
| written literature does. Reading well written anything increases language
| skills. Well written work is focused, organized, has style, displays
| content, and obeys all the rules of the language. These things are nearly
| impossible to teach with memorization techniques. Reading teaches
language
| skills by example, the same way most of us learned to speak in the first
| place. At 3 years old, most of us could form sentences without the
benefit
| of grammar lessons. Why? Because we were imitating what we took in. We
hear
| before we can speak. We read before we can write (effectively).
| The catch, as I see it, is that many people don't like to read, for a
| variety of reasons. It's no wonder then, that they don't write well
either.
| Kids need to be read to from an early age, to have pleasant memories
| associated with reading, and to be encouraged and rewarded (initially at
| least) for focusing long enough to read an assignment. Good parenting
here
| is critical and irreplaceable. Like so many other things, if you can get
| them started early, they will enjoy much greater success later.
| One bit of evidence seems irrefutable: those who won't or can't read,
can't
| write very well either.
| The billboards you mention make a good point. The people who create them,
| I'm sure, know the rules of language well. Their casual (mis)usage
promotes
| and instructs others, albeit informally, to follow suit. They're selling
a
| product other than language, and have no direct stake in the educational
| outcome of their work. People see them, read them, and proceed to write
| using similar syntax. One way or another, we're all learning something.
|

I didn't say that was the only word I missed. It was the 4th incorrect
out of 10, giving me an F. What is even worse, I brought the detergent
box to school as proof that I was correct. Learned how to spell a new
word that day, HUMILIATION


On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 18:06:05 -0300, "Capt. Mooron"
wrote:

What kind of test is it that you only have to miss one word to fail??

CM

"Marc" wrote in message
.. .
| Case in Point. I failed a sixth grade spelling test because I
| misspelled "does". My mother, at the time, used a laundry detergent
| brand named DUZ.
|
|
| On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 14:16:34 -0400, "Scout"
| wrote:
|
| Frank,
| Even with all the outrageous expectations placed on schools, they still
find
| time to do some serious and legitimate research. Take it or leave it,
here
| is some insight that the English teacher may have left out.
| There is overwhelming evidence (formal educational research) which
strongly
| suggests that teaching the conventions of English (spelling, grammar,
etc.)
| does not work, simply because it is taken out of context. Translation,
| students (people) learn the rules of a language much more effectively by
| exposure to others who use it correctly (i.e., via reading).
| Memorizing rules does not make significantly better writers. Reading well
| written literature does. Reading well written anything increases language
| skills. Well written work is focused, organized, has style, displays
| content, and obeys all the rules of the language. These things are nearly
| impossible to teach with memorization techniques. Reading teaches
language
| skills by example, the same way most of us learned to speak in the first
| place. At 3 years old, most of us could form sentences without the
benefit
| of grammar lessons. Why? Because we were imitating what we took in. We
hear
| before we can speak. We read before we can write (effectively).
| The catch, as I see it, is that many people don't like to read, for a
| variety of reasons. It's no wonder then, that they don't write well
either.
| Kids need to be read to from an early age, to have pleasant memories
| associated with reading, and to be encouraged and rewarded (initially at
| least) for focusing long enough to read an assignment. Good parenting
here
| is critical and irreplaceable. Like so many other things, if you can get
| them started early, they will enjoy much greater success later.
| One bit of evidence seems irrefutable: those who won't or can't read,
can't
| write very well either.
| The billboards you mention make a good point. The people who create them,
| I'm sure, know the rules of language well. Their casual (mis)usage
promotes
| and instructs others, albeit informally, to follow suit. They're selling
a
| product other than language, and have no direct stake in the educational
| outcome of their work. People see them, read them, and proceed to write
| using similar syntax. One way or another, we're all learning something.
|

...at least you died trying! ;-)

CM

"Marc" wrote in message
...
| I didn't say that was the only word I missed. It was the 4th incorrect
| out of 10, giving me an F. What is even worse, I brought the detergent
| box to school as proof that I was correct. Learned how to spell a new
| word that day, HUMILIATION
|
|
| On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 18:06:05 -0300, "Capt. Mooron"
| wrote:
|
| What kind of test is it that you only have to miss one word to fail??
|
| CM
|
| "Marc" wrote in message
| .. .
| | Case in Point. I failed a sixth grade spelling test because I
| | misspelled "does". My mother, at the time, used a laundry detergent
| | brand named DUZ.
| |
| |
| | On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 14:16:34 -0400, "Scout"
| | wrote:
| |
| | Frank,
| | Even with all the outrageous expectations placed on schools, they
still
| find
| | time to do some serious and legitimate research. Take it or leave it,
| here
| | is some insight that the English teacher may have left out.
| | There is overwhelming evidence (formal educational research) which
| strongly
| | suggests that teaching the conventions of English (spelling, grammar,
| etc.)
| | does not work, simply because it is taken out of context. Translation,
| | students (people) learn the rules of a language much more effectively
by
| | exposure to others who use it correctly (i.e., via reading).
| | Memorizing rules does not make significantly better writers. Reading
well
| | written literature does. Reading well written anything increases
language
| | skills. Well written work is focused, organized, has style, displays
| | content, and obeys all the rules of the language. These things are
nearly
| | impossible to teach with memorization techniques. Reading teaches
| language
| | skills by example, the same way most of us learned to speak in the
first
| | place. At 3 years old, most of us could form sentences without the
| benefit
| | of grammar lessons. Why? Because we were imitating what we took in. We
| hear
| | before we can speak. We read before we can write (effectively).
| | The catch, as I see it, is that many people don't like to read, for a
| | variety of reasons. It's no wonder then, that they don't write well
| either.
| | Kids need to be read to from an early age, to have pleasant memories
| | associated with reading, and to be encouraged and rewarded (initially
at
| | least) for focusing long enough to read an assignment. Good parenting
| here
| | is critical and irreplaceable. Like so many other things, if you can
get
| | them started early, they will enjoy much greater success later.
| | One bit of evidence seems irrefutable: those who won't or can't read,
| can't
| | write very well either.
| | The billboards you mention make a good point. The people who create
them,
| | I'm sure, know the rules of language well. Their casual (mis)usage
| promotes
| | and instructs others, albeit informally, to follow suit. They're
selling
| a
| | product other than language, and have no direct stake in the
educational
| | outcome of their work. People see them, read them, and proceed to
write
| | using similar syntax. One way or another, we're all learning
something.
| |
|
|

Heheeee - looks like we're all jerks!
Scout


"thunder" wrote
Americans are not #1.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3185291.stm

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 20:59:57 GMT, Marc wrote this
crap:

Case in Point. I failed a sixth grade spelling test because I
misspelled "does". My mother, at the time, used a laundry detergent
brand named DUZ.

You failed a spelling test by misspelling one word?

What a strict school!




Ave Imperator Bush!
Bush Was Right! Four More Years!