Canuck bloggers not breaking many stories from Canadian Journalist

An article for Maissoneuve magazine by a National Post writer attempts to answer why Canuck bloggers haven't generated a shockwave of a ...

Tracked on October 7, 2005 7:29 PM

Politicians and mainstream media are pussies!

puss·y
n. pl. puss·ies

1. Informal. A cat.
2. Botany. A fuzzy catkin, especially of the pussy willow.
3. Vulgar Slang.
1. The vulva.
2. Sexual intercourse with a woman.
4. Offensive Slang. Used as a disparaging term for a woman.
5. Slang. A man regarded as weak, timid, or unmanly.
Dictionary.com

Yes, maz2, apparently the list of "allowable" words is somewhat longer for a Montreal-based magazine than one in Toronto the Good.

I didn't read the article, but I say "Yes".

For example: The Liberals just announced a plan to increase immigration by 40%, despite a) many polls showing about 85%-90% of Canadians oppose increasing immigration, and b) plenty of data that shows immigrants since 1990 have had a net negative effect on the Canadian economy.

This is a really important issue, I would argue a bigger issue than health care, gas prices, or education. People before policies. Yet nobody is touching this story, and we all know why.

My best guess is that Canadian bloggers - people in general, really - are too ego driven; everyone wants to be popular, and even the dimmest blogger understands they will be shunned for making politically incorrect posts. So everyone plays it safe, and The Left gets another free pass. Popularity wins out over truth, justice, and virtue. So it goes.

On a slighty separate note: the Canadian blogsphere is a total sausage party; where are the chicks? Right now, Canadian males are the weaker, more effeminate, and more submissive gender. Read Fire and Ice to see precisely how quantifiably pussified Canadian men are compared to American men.

As some guy once said:

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."

Don't be like a puppy chasing the tennis balls the MSM throws to distract you from what is important. Set your own agenda, man.

The guy has a point. Although the government steals from us the Belinda types cross the floor on a bribe
and they don't seem to take any kind of hit is remarkable.
Having said that and being a Futures trader I do know that those kinds of incidents usually mean a top. Or in this case as good as it gets. typically in the market when you see this kind of thing which is after all just millions of people making decisions on the information, what happens afterward is their fortunes take a nose dive.
After that much negative news you got to figure they have used up all the goodwill they have been so fortunate to survive on this long.
So blog folks do not get faint of heart or discouraged your efforts are not for not. Soon you will see rewards for your efforts.
After all sooner or later people will discouver that they are better off making their own choices about their money and how best to run their own lives. Even a government check becomes pale if you figure out you have more if you just got to keep the money in the first place, and not had to pay for Dingwalls gum or Quebecs narcissism.

5000 visitors @ day here and it's the same 3 guys commenting...maz2, tony and doug.

The comments at the bottom of the article have a history lesson about delusion.

"The comments at the bottom of the article have a history lesson about delusion."

You also look askance at men in toga and sandles, yes?

Gee, that's strange, Steve, maybe there's something wrong with your browser. Over the last four threads, for example, I've seen comments by Angry, Anonalogue, capt_bob, Cheri, Christian Conservative, colin, Dan, David E, David MacLean , Don, DrWright, eastern capitlaist, Eskimo, ET, gimbol, Great Walls of Fire, Jeff Cosford, Jema54, John, kakola, kelly, Liam O'Brien, LJ, Mad Mike, mark, Mark Collins, maz2 , Meurasult, Nancy, Occam's Carbuncle, old squid, Peter Loewen, Rob R, Sean, Steve in Ontario, TB, The Tiger, TonyGuitar, ward, and, of course, yourself and myself.

Analogue:

No free pass for you. Please cite two polls which show opposition to immigration at 80%. I bet you can't find any that have it at even 70%.

Peter

Penis Lowun;

I reject the New Truth which states that "no truth exists unless a googled link is provided." The onus is on you to get your head out of the sand and know these things. If you want to make it interesting I'l bet you $200 right now that I can find 2 articles...oh wait, I see what the problem is: you are stupid, and cannot read. This is you:

" opposition to immigration at 80%"

This is me:

"many polls showing about 85%-90% of Canadians oppose increasing immigration"

Notice the subtle, yet critically important, distinction. Not my fault you can't read.

If you want to put a couple hundred dollars ($200 CAD) on whether I can produce two (2) mainstream media quoted polls showing that sixteen (16) or fewer percent (%) of Canadians oppose an increase in immigration, well, golly, call me a sucker and let's make arrangements. If you want to make this bet, email me or respond here. No free pass for you.

Actually, to be technical, Maz doesn't really comment. He just pads into a room on with his webbed toes and blurts some way off thread piece of "news" that offended him, types LIBERANO$$$$$$$, and leaves. Someone, (I'm sorry, I forget who) commented that Maz's behavior was the blogosphere equivqlent of walking into a room and farting.

Note: should read "16% or less in favour of an increase in immigration"...I almost I just suckered myself...;-)

Actually, to be technical, Maz doesn't really comment. He just pads into a room on with his webbed toes and blurts some way off thread piece of "news" that offended him, types LIBERANO$$$$$$$, and leaves. Someone, (I'm sorry, I forget who) commented that Maz's behavior was the blogosphere equivqlent of walking into a room and farting.
Posted by Don at October 6, 2005 05:45 PM

Anonalogue:

Here's the bet.

1.) $200 CAD.
2.) Find me two mainstream polls (let's put a time limit of two years on the polls) which indicate that a minimum of 90% of Canadians oppose increasing immigration. Note, this means that they have to be asked about increasing immigration, not their opinions on it generally. And the ambivalent position can't be taken as opposition.
3.) We have to be able to source the polls. I don't want you directing me to a quote of the polls.

If you want it, you got it.

Librano$>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don.

Stranger yet, Steve, I modified my comment authors indexing program to include a reverse index lookup check, and it turns out that in the last four threads there was no "doug" posting. Perhaps you've been infected with some adware that's mixing in comments from My Blahg and rabble.ca, and that's why you're annoyed by what you think are comments from SDA.

Oh never mind, Steve, now it turns out that Anonalogue is still in grade three; what's the point?

And, pace the Don quote, Maz2 does occasionally interject personally, and I tend to find those posts interesting. He also does sometimes add valuable link data to a thread. I'm the author of the flatulence reference, but, still, he's just our resident Maz. Keep your stick on the ice, buddy, and get that auto-repeat keyboard malfunction fixed, please ;-)

By the way, Anonalogue, before the bet is activated, you have to post your real name on this thread. It's only fair. People have to know who the incorrect one - me or you - really is.

Thanks, Tony. It's kinda lonely here in this cell.
Libel chill, right? Those Librano$ operatives, aka ---, are tracking these strokes as

Someone's gonna' jump on me for "stifiling debate", and someone's gonna' wanna' take away my range safety officer T-shirt, but it does occur to me that arranging formal gambling on somebody else's web site might be less than optimal. Perhaps you guys could take the bet to email, and just inform us of the winner ;-)

"you have to post your real name on this thread"

Sure, did you want my social insurance number and DOB too?

Here's poll #1, I've got several candidates for poll #2 but they're over two years old. I'll keep digging. Doesn't sound like you want to pay anyway, so I'll just go ahead and post it here. Please read the wording very sloooooowly and carefully:

http://www.thestrategiccounsel.com/our_news/polls/0805%20GMCTV%20August%20Poll.pdf

"Does Canada accept the right number of immigrants per year?"
%
Too many 32
About the right number 46
Too few 10
DK/NA/Ref 12

(In a hushed voice: Hmm, well, that's knight to king's bishop four, ladies and gentlemen, and now we await Peter's move...)

Penis: Here's one from 1994; while the data is a little dated, it suggests a trend:

"About 67 percent of the respondents in Canada's largest city said there were too many immigrants, compared with 46 percent just two years ago. In the poll, conducted [in February] by Ottawa-based Ekos Research Associates Inc., 53 per cent of Canadians questioned immigration levels, compared with 44 per cent two years ago. ... [Only] 7 percent said there were two few immigrants in Canada. (Globe and Mail, March 10, 1994)

So there's your two polls showing 10% or fewer Canadians favour an increase in immigration. Try googling "canada immigration poll" and you will find more polls which say much the same thing.

No, that is faulty inference, and you are using the data improperly. The question asked "Does Canada accept the right number of immigrants per year?" While 10% of people think it is too few, about a third think there are too many. But, the data tell us little or nothing about how the middle category would respond if presented with a proposal to increase the number.

An analagous example. Suppose we ask what individuals think of current tax levels, and 10% say they are too low, 32% say they are too high, and 40% say they are just about right. Does this mean that the 40% would not support lowering those tax rates if the option was offered? You can't know.

In other words, how you feel about current provisions does not predict perfectly how you feel about potential changes.

Find a more recent question akin to the Ekos one and I will concede. (You`'ll note in that survey that 67% and not 90% said there were too many, and it's from a sample of Toronto, not Canada).

(Hushed voice: Excellent block with the rook, ladies and gentlemen. Oh all right, I'll cut it out now ;-)

Penis: Gee, why am I not surprised you don't understand logic and inference? You should've thrown in an a priori or two for a full and authentic condescending - yet exactly wrong and stupid - Canadian blogsphere commentor experience. You sound like a bloody subjectivist-statist *cough* Liberal *cough*.

You have your marching orders Penis, no more spoonfeeding for you! Go google "canada immigration poll" - or get someone to do it for you - and see what you can learn. Then, go bug a Liberal!

Your maturity is astounding.

I assume I've won, since you've no other evidence, and that which you presented was faulty. You can keep your money, since it's likely impossible for me to collect.

Please, go ahead and show me where I've made logical or inferential errors.

(Hushed I can't help myself voice: Oh my, ladies and gentlemen, unless we're missing something obvious, it does indeed look like Peter wins by default!)

Penis Lowun
heh
funny

The Liberals will continue bringing their disgusting excuse for voters from any sewer on this planet that has humaoid carbon units with a pulse.

They will continue to come as long as they are in power.

Whatever party takes power will continue to bring in the pond scum too.

Why? because Canada which appears to be inhabited largely by gays and lesbians (that is ... judging by the importance Ottawa places on legislatin gor them) DON'T have children. Most regular Canadians don't want more than one or two because with the taxation we have in this country no one can afford to raise a kid other than on some sort to welfare plan .... whick coincidentally our new comers are more than happy to comply with in spades.

THE PROBLEMS:
- Canadians are generally gullible and somewhat stupid (government schools see to that).
- We have become a mindless socialist dependant society. (Pierre Trudeau saw to that)
- We prefer to let others think for us.
- We are spineless. (Don't even want an army or police ... we prefer a bunch of sensitivety trained arbitrators)
We have no really good leadership since the trash at the Toronto Star and the CBC will make anyone's life a living hell if they aren't socialist.

SUMMARY:
We are fucked! (not too pussy to say it either) for the forseeable future.

ONLY HOPE:

Someday the US marines come and liberate us from our despots.

Meanwhile, we are getting what we deserve ... so like what's on TV ... Yawn .... good night.

Darcey Lowen: "Your maturity is astounding."

No, my data mining skills are astounding. Stop blabbering like a schoolgirl about how you "won"; you didn't "win" fuck all, you didn't post fuck all data, and you didn't learn fuck all from my data. All you did was make a really shitty counter argument.

Look up "Bayesian Inference"; it's kinda how I make my living, kid.

Here is precisely where your logic breaks down:

"But, the data tell us little or nothing about how the middle category would respond if presented with a proposal to increase the number."

Actually, we know quite a lot how the middle would respond. Given the data, you'd have to be quite stupid to propose that given a slightly different question - and that part is more than disputable - would yield significantly different results. This is precisely where your weak abilities to infer lead you to such a shitty conclusion, and why you must learn Bayesian inference.

Now that you are quantifiably wrong and demonstrably stupid, please go bug a Liberal.

"Penis Lowun
heh
funny"

Even funnier, the guy has no problem spelling "analogous", but starts the convo off on a bad note with the ever-witty "Anal-ogue". T3h funn13, indeed!

Anonalogue:

Quick - please explain precisely what Bayesian Inference tells us about the data you posted on Canadians' (rather Torontonians') attitudes toward increased immigration. Provide equations if you're able (and I'm assuming you are, since it is your livelihood). I, for one, am really interested in becoming more enlightened.

Anonalogue:

I am familiar with Bayesian inference. I use it sometimes when I get paid to work for a polling firm.

Anyway, the obligation was on you to provide data. You've provided none that is convincing. Moreover, you're yet to show my my inferential errors. Please feel free to use formal logical operators, right after your respond to Elizabeth GG with equations.

Time to pack it up, son.

Political web logs are like prospecting. Wandering, seemingly aimlessly, through fields of mud and stone, the prospector seeks the elusive nugget (gem on a good day, possibly Bayesian) of the sort of dialectics one would expect from thoughtful, concerned citizens.

The signal to noise ratio is horrific; if only we had the simple problems of short-wave radio. Yet, at the end of the day, back at camp, we cherish our small geophysical advances, yea though our boots are caked with mud. Little by little our thoughts evolve, as we plan our assault on the next range.

Clearing out a skunk is an ugly job, Tailgunner Joe once said, after you're done you smell bad and no-one wants to talk to you. But somebody's got to do it.

EGG: Sure, did you want me to explain gravity too? I have better things to do.

Getting back to the point of this thread and the article in question, Canadians seem to have more problem with those of us who hold the Liberals accountable - rather than marvelling at their nefarious tactics - than they do with the Liberals. EGG, you seem to have more problem with my inference stuff, where the bigger and more pertinent issue is immigration. Strange, no?

Until attacking the Liberals or any of their core beliefs and policies - like an immigration rate way, way out of line with public opinion - ceases to be seen as inherently evil by the vast majority of pussified Canadians - even small and big c conservatives, it will be difficult to get a Conservative majority government in this country.

Anonalogue:

Just about the response I expected.

Hmmm... I think you are the one who raised the issue of correct inferential methods. You went from Bayesian methods to "pussified" in one fell swoop. Good show.

Peter North - Bi - Northwest: "You've provided none that is convincing."

OK, now you're just flat out lying. You even admitted the CTV poll, which was done in July 2005 and widely reported, was legit.

Besides, you wussied out long ago when you added the "reveal name" rider and made up your own brand new terms for your brand new imaginary bet. As if a whistleblower like me is gonna reveal his name for two bills, and you know that, which makes you a sleazy pussy.

Head out of the sand....

Anonalogue:

I guess that means we won't be seeing any equations. Perhaps you should put your head back into your posterior and see what you find (a blatantly bad Bayesian joke which probably went over your head)?

Like I said, time for bed, son. Let me know when you want my mailing address to send on that money. If you're tight, I can wait until you get your home heating rebate.

Or, to put it another way, since penises are on the table: Stop being such a dink, Anonalogue.

I don't want you to explain gravity to me, I pretty much grok that. I want you to explain your evidence to the effect that to the effect that "many polls show about 85%-90% of Canadians oppose increasing immigration."

I would not be upset if you were correct, but so far all you've done is made a fool of yourself.

Even if the CTV poll was as your intepreted it (and it is not) that is still one poll. You owe me one more.

Nice equations.

toni: " but so far all you've done is made a fool of yourself."

No, I've posted data, responded to questions, and proven Peter wrong at least 3 times. How much data have you posted? How much googling have you done? What have you added substantive besides calling me a dink?

Peter started off by being a dink and - here is the important part - it really does matter who started it, though that old fashioned sorta thinking probably isn't convenient for you right now.

I really don't care if you or anyone else thinks I'm a dink, "tony", I have less than zero tolerance for stupidity and dishonesty. We don't need more pussified Mr. Congeniality types here in Canada; we need pissed off men to stand the fuck up for what they believe in, and that often means giving chronically wrong guys like Peter a good counterthrashing now and again. If this offends your sensibilities, you're probably not the type of guy who has what it takes to stand up for Canada, so get bent.

"You owe me one more."

Notice the sense of entitlement so typical of The Left. I don't "owe" you anything, Pierre, other than an attitude adjustment.

Anonalogue:

Again, nice equations. You're a Bayesian master. I like that second poll you found, too. Also, good to see that you've come around on google since your earlier post.

I think it's clear to everyone here that you've failed to prove your point. You've presented one, unconvincing statistic. To refresh, 32% of respondents said we had too many immigrants, and 46% said it was the right amount. 10% said we had too few. If asked about increasing immigration, everyone of those people who think immigration is just right would have to switch to opposition, and even then you would only have opposition of 78%. You're not even close to 90%, and that is under extremely unlikely conditions.

If you have some Bayesian argument which suggest something else - I assume you've had your head in your posteriors for a little while now - feel free to post it. Otherwise, just admit you've lost. Or, just stop misrepresenting statistics.

In the meantime, hold on to my money and get yourself a subscription to the POQ. It would help you.

"A June, 1994 poll, commissioned by the Immigration Association of Canada and conducted by Forum Canada Research confirmed a host of other polls that continue to show ongoing opposition by the Canadian Majority to the current immigration policy. Respondents were asked:

-The Federal government plans to accept 250,000 immigrants to Canada in 1994. In your opinion, it this too many, too few or about right?
A total of 60.3 per cent said too many; a mere 1.6 per cent said too few.

(Calgary Herald, August 4, 1994)

Nice equation, Rev. Bayes.

If I ask you if it is too hot in a room, too cold, or fine, and you answer fine, what would your response be if I asked if I could turn up the heat?

Peter

"Ellen Gee, a sociologist at Simon Fraser University ..., said the changes in immigration patterns have taken place so rapidly that the result is a recipe for social unease. "Survey after survey shows that people are negative about immigrants. I'm very pessimistic. ... Prof. Gee said opinion surveys consistently show the public disapproves of immigrants, particularly in the large urban areas that receive most of them." (Globe and Mail, December 9, 1992)"

"Confidential government documents suggest Canadians are becoming increasingly hostile -- if not racist -- towards immigration. The document prepared by senior immigration officials say internal government polling shows "attitudes to immigration levels appear to be hardening, with significantly more Canadians feeling there are too many immigrants coming to Canada." The confidential government survey found fully half of those Canadians polled in the past year were either intolerant or outright 'xenophones'. ... Only 14 per cent were listed as compassionate." Moreover, senior government officials warn: "Canadians seriously underestimate the number of immigrants arriving annually." (Ottawa Citizen, December 9, 1993)

"Almost six Canadians in 10 express at least some reservations about the number of immigrants to Canada, a poll for the federal immigration department indicates. (Toronto Star, August 19, 1996) Interestingly, the Star had to winkle this taxpayer-funded poll out of the government through an Access to Information Act request.

-Forty-six per cent of respondents said there are too many immigrants coming to Canada. ... Forty-two per cent said immigration levels are about right (Now, do the math on those who think we need more immigrants; you made need Bayesian Inference here! - Anon.), ... but some respondents who initially said the number of immigrants is about right subsequently said there may be "a little too many." (Uh-oh, looks like Peter was right, yet wrong! - Anon.)This suggests that ... concerns about the level of immigration may be (and have been, in earlier surveys) more widespread than one would think in light of responses to the initial question, said a memo to the minister."

OK, that's 3 polls I've posted showing

And speaking of North By Northwest, that great violin work in the chase scene reminds me of the equations in chapter 12, "Design of Feedforward and Feedback Control Schemes," in "Time Series Analysis, Forecasting & Control" by Box & Jenkins, Holden Day, 1976.

You stats (and data mining) folks should check it out. After all, it's one thing to take a poll, and something else entirely to design control systems, which at the end of the day is what government is about. Process is where it's at, man ;-)

Yours,
The Man From P.U.S.S.I.E.
Process Undergirding Systems Support Infrastructure Engineering.
Bring us your kitty, and we'll build a bridge out of 'er.

Nice! Three news stories, all at least ten years old, and not a single good description of the question or the distributions among them.

I guess you'd use results from the 1993 election to ascertain the support of the Conservative party today, too?

Keep stabbing in the dark, just don't hurt yourself.

Look at Tony referencing the classic stats texts. Nice!

Hey Anonalogue:

By the way, that poll is not about *increased* immigration, which was the point of your original post. In fact, immigration to Canada declined in 1994. Course, if I were a Bayesian, the picture would *obviously* be quite different.

By the way, Anon, why don't you cut your losses, give up on Lexus-Nexus, and go back to your "Bayesian for Beginners".

The thing is, Anonalogue, most of the folks here probably agree with you that there are problems with Canada's immigration policy, I certainly do. But you simply can't go around calling people, on your side or their side, penises, and you can't get away with casually dropping Bayes in like that somehow automatically validates your claim, and still expect people who know penises and Bayes to be treat you seriously.

I think you are, broadly, "on my side". I've read your comments for months. If you would pay more attention to your argument, and less to taking offense, I think you would have more success in influencing others.

Of course, that's just my opinion.

Look how far you've come, Peter! This is you at the beginning of this thread:

"Analogue:(Good one! - Anon.)

No free pass for you. Please cite two polls which show opposition to immigration at 80%. I bet you can't find any that have it at even 70%.
Peter"

I don't need to remind you how badly you misunderstood the first set of data, do I? OK, maybe one more time, since you seem to have forgotten how demonstably stupid you are:

"This is me:

"many polls showing about 85%-90% of Canadians oppose increasing immigration"

Notice the subtle, yet critically important, distinction. Not my fault you can't read."

I said what I was going to do, and did it. I don't argue to the point of convincing an extreme morn like you; I aim to convince only up to the median moron, and I've done that. I'm not surprised you are so hostile. Now go bug a Liberal.

Watch out Peter, one of these days I'm going to pull out my Butkov on you: http://tinyurl.com/dyaqs ;-)

Yes, you've pointed out that typo a couple of times now.

Again, nice equations. And nice work finding a single poll which demonstrates that when asked "Do you oppose increases in immigration" 90% of Canadians agree. Or even 70%.

I really like the Bayesian demonstration you've given. Shall I call you the Glib Sampler (suspect you won't get this joke either)?

back to what started all of this: it is interesting how xenophobes always assume that the majority of their community agree with them. ANAL. seems to think that immigration to canada is a bad thing for canada and for the immigrants (because he disparages the country so much). and i am sorry about the child like name calling but its more of a suitable abbreviation than anything else.
furthermore; does this site have the highest retention of statistics majors on the web?

Just so Petr, EKG, Tonie, and the rest of the aggrieved can sleep tonight, and not need to seek grief counselling or take stress leave:

Canada is a shiny happy country with a shiny happy immigration policy that all Canadians love.

All better now?

Some New Troll: "ANAL. seems to think that immigration to canada is a bad thing for canada "

An absurd assumption; posting data does not equate to stating opinion. I have not stated my thoughts on the matter in any way in this thread.

Notice how stupid this guy is to assume that since I post some data, that I must agree with what the data says. A small child can see that is illogical.

"because he disparages the country so much"

This is super false; I am a known Canada lover. Again, you are - I hate this word but it fits - projecting.

" xenophobes"

Hey, you just called me a xenophobe! That's absurd!

That looks like a white flag. Does this mean Mr. Loewen will get his two c-notes?

Anonalogue is absolutely correct when he claims that our immigration 'policy' is more important than other issues! In order to express an opinion on this subject, one must first INFORM themself on this issue. (I would cordially suggest that you take a look at what Martin Collacott has to say about this, on the Fraser Institute website.) And when you separate the FACT from the FICTION, you are going to be as profoundly shocked as I am!
Is it correct- or not- that we currently have a backlog of almost 700,000 OFFICIAL applicants to move to this country? (Bearing in mind, that these people have filled out all the forms, had their medical tests, security tests, etc. and paid nearly 1500 bucks- each- with their applications?) Slightly less than 1500 bucks EACH X 700,000 people!

Anonalogue:

You are something else. Are you saying you brought up those statistics because you think immigration is a great idea? It's so clearly not the case.

Second, you are the one who has projected a policy position onto everyone who has agreed with you.

It's almost funny how absurd you are. Almost.

Shiny/Happy? Oh, come on, Anonalogue, see 10:12 p.m. hereto op. cit. Get a grip, mate, you're fighting your own side. Let's go over do Dave now, who seems to have a fresh angle on the case...

Yes, I am something else. Stop pretending that I didn't smoke you in this thread, lickboy, and recognize The Anonalogue Experience.

Yeah, you're a master. Again, nice Bayesian equations.

I wonder if 90% of Canadians support increased emmigration.

What's a "lickboy"?

I think it's someone who has recently won a bet by unfairly wagering against a fool. But that's just a guess.

EGG - your cat needs your attention more than I do right now, go pet it.

Peter - I've assigned you some homework, step to it:

1) Type "Canada immigration poll" in a "search" "engine", press "submit" (being a Subjectivist - Statist, submitting should be entirely your bag) and see what you can learn.

2) Write an essay on why you suck at blog commenting.

i wonder why anal. is so worked up. does he really think that a minty fresh new canadian immigrant will want his job? i mean it is conceivable: little familiarity with the english language and no skill set necessary, bring your own opinions, facts and logic! - actually that is an undeserved insult to the thousands and thousands of people who come to this country bringing their extraordinary skills and experiences to make canada a better place. but i guess we all forget that we all came from somewhere else when we are so busy demeaning women.

also lickboy has no entry at urbandictionary.com and means nothing outside of whatever context anal. mis-copied it from. dude, why dont admit defeat and stop spewing your santorum everywhere.

Anon:

I don't have time for the cat right now. I'm too busy running Markov chain Monte Carlo simulations to determine the probability that you will pay Mr. Loewen. But I don't need to tell you that this is a good technique for rare events simulation.

I may also have time later to estimate the probability that you know what I'm talking about. Let me know if you're interested in the output.

Hey Peter, you folks keeping score at home, it's been a slice, but I'm starting to think we're beginning to run in circles.

Every post is valueable, at least to its poster in terms of their time investment. Let's all try to remember these words by Alexander Pope, from his "Essay on Man":

Know then thyself, presume not God to scan;
The proper study of mankind is Man.
Placed on this isthmus of a middle state,
A being darkly wise, and rudely great:
With too much knowledge for the skeptic side
With too much weakness for the Stoic's pride,
He hangs between; in doubt to act, or rest.
In doubt to deem himself a god, or beast;
In doubt his mind or body to prefer,
Born but to die, and reasoning but to err;
Alike in ignorance, his reason such,
Whether he thinks too little, or too much:
Chaos of thought and passion, all confused;
Still by himself abused, or disabused;
Created half to rise, and half to fall;
Great lord of all things, yet a prey to all;
Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurled:
The glory, jest, and riddle of the world!

G'night. Y'all take care now, y'hear.

Peter, Anonalogu, Tony, EGG:

All other arguements aside what is the ideal number of immigrants that should be accepted into Canada annually?

"All other arguements aside what is the ideal number of immigrants that should be accepted into Canada annually?"

There was an article in the Sun yesterday or the day before - too tired to google - which said that since 1990 immigration in Canada has had a net negative economic effect. Seeing as how data like this would seem to be highly relevant in determining the optimal amount of immigrants, and seeing as how we (and when I say "we" I mean guys like Peter) seem to have a problem acknowledging let alone accepting data which doesn't conform to our views, I'd be skeptical of anyone who didn't present a shitload of good data in giving a hard number.

And it's not just the number of immigrants, but the basis of admission needs to be considered as well. 300,000 refugees or family reunification thingies is a lot different than 300,000 wealthy Hong Kong expats.

Until people stop rejecting the super extremely large amount of data that is out there which indicates Canadians are nearly unaimously against an increase in immigration, and until people stop freaking out or turtling whenever immigration is mentioned, I think we're not ready for a grownup discussion about how Canada should proceed on immigration. In short, we are too pussified.

BTW, data is plural.

Oh Peter. You're so "anal"...

The main reason blogs have more influence in America than here is not because of the product or productivity of their blogs, as compared with ours, it is because Americans are much more open minded than Canadians.

Canadians are in fact so incapable of thinking for themselves that they are quite content to have a foreign head of state 137 years after the nation was founded. This is the essence of a backward country. It is little wonder Canadians oppose freedom for Iraqis.

Risk being killed so that others may live free? What's that all about?

Calling Canadians pussies is a compliment-although the approbation is in the general area of the correct anatomical description.

...a disheartened Canadian...

76 comments and not one was interesting.

This is probaly the reason why more people just
visit and don't come back.

It happens on blogs, a few people take over and
anyone wanting to join in are not "in" on
what is being said, they are not welcomed afte
a few times trying and so leave.

It takes some real interest in the words, penis
and fuck I guess to enjoy the comments.

Yes, for sure, there is a change needed if
you want more real discussions.

It happens on blogs.

"Oh Peter. You're so "anal"..."

Well that's something I've been wondering about. Only question is....is Peter a "top" or a "bottom"?

Comments not required.>>>

EDITORIAL: Burning issues in Ottawa
Toronto Sun ^ | 2005-10-07 | (editorial page)

Posted on 10/07/2005 4:43:55 AM PDT by Clive

Today, we begin a new editorial feature here at the Sun.

We call it: "Here's another good reason to burn down Parliament Hill and tar and feather every !@@#$# Liberal MP we can find as they run out of the building."

Today, in our first installment, we offer two good reasons. >>>>
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1498267/posts

Excerpt from an Oct. 4 news release from The Fraser Institute:

"There has been a sharp decline in the economic performance of recent immigrants to Canada since 1990, according to Immigration and the Welfare State in Canada: Growing Conflicts, Constructive Solutions, released today by The Fraser Institute.
...
The paper cites official statistics showing that recent immigrants, on average, have lower incomes than comparable Canadians even after 10 years’ residence in Canada. As a result of these lower incomes, the progressive income tax structure of the Canadian welfare state and the universal availability of government benefits have resulted in substantial transfers from other Canadians to these immigrants. Grubel estimates the transfer to immigrants who arrived between 1990 and 2002 is approximately $18.3 billion every year, based on 2002 data.

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=685

Read the report Anonalogue. It doesn't say 18.3 billion a year. That's the aggregate since 1990. Either you misread it, or misrepresented it. Neither would surprise me.

By the way, I was up all night in fascination over those Bayesian equations you posted.

I am loathe to admit it, but I am wrong. I misread that statistic. Sorry, Anon. Too quick on the trigger.

"By the way, I was up all night in fascination over those Bayesian equations you posted."

And I was up all night in fascination over this "Elizabeth" chick who is good at math; that totally gives me a woodie. Her attitude, less so. Anyone know if she's single? And Catholic? Since she has a cat, and is good at math, I'm gonna get my Bayesian Inference on and say "yes". Statists call this "stereotyping", but they're stupid and wrong.

Anyhoo, I need to produce an heir - long story - prefereably an intelligent one. So if you're reading this Elizabeth, please contact me at anonalogue@yahoo.com and I'll tell you everything you want to know about Bayesian Inference, and we can arrange for a successful mount.

I was waiting for Anon to bring it to this level. In fact, I'm surprised he didn't go there earlier. It's really the last resort of a failing intellect.

Anon, here's a little tip, vulgarity does not make you funny or less wrong. The intelligent visitors to this site will see your last statement for what it is.

By the way, can you give us the equations on the probability that I'm a single, Catholic geek?

Hey, I think I figured out what Blogs really are:
modern day playground for childish behavior.
I hope the government doesn't get wind of it or they may come up with a National CyberCare.

Elizabeth G-G: I would like to offer my sincere appologies, if I may be so bold, for all males in general.

Mike, RoA

Anonalogue, jesus! You're last post was creepy to me and I'm a good ol Alberta redneck.

Canada is a G7 country! It is not entirely surprising that immigrants do not immediately start out at the same income level as a 3rd generation Canuck. If the income of immigrants is sufficient to support themselves, there is absolutely no impact on other Canadians. Face it, there are some jobs Canadians don't want to do. There are also other factors at play such as the lack of recognition of foreign medical degrees and foreign experience that lower the income of immigrants. In any case, the transfers you mention is less than 1% of the taxation by the federal government. How does that number compare to seasonal workers?

Elizabeth Goodyear-Grant: Elizabeth is a PhD student in the Department of Political Science at McGill University. She is a SSHRCC Doctoral Fellow and a research assistant for the Canadian Election Study team. Her work focuses on political behaviour, media and elections, methodologies, and gender and politics.
No pictures.

Good show, Brian C. You're bang on with the post.

Estimating the fiscal impact of immigration is a statistical mess (at best), and I'm not sure the Fraser Institute is the best source on the subject. A better source would be something like OECD Econ. Outlook or similar.

Immigration is not just about money. First, at the current rate of population replacement (births/deaths in simple format), Canada is in trouble.

Second, Canada, like most civilized countries, recognizes the fundamental right of family reunification. In plain english, this means that we must accept low-earning dependents because to do otherwise would break up families.

Finally, most calculations (including those in the report of the Fraser Institute) include refugees as immigrants in calculating fiscal impact. This is decidedly suspect, since the logic of asylum is not based in any way on economic considerations. It is a human rights issue, not a fiscal issue. What a surprise that refugees from Rwanda, North Korea, or other such places have lower earning capacities than Canadian citizens.

If immigration produces a net budgetary loss (and that's a big if), there may be more important factors at play.

OK, is anyone here NOT a political science student? Man, I feel like I'm on the Truman Show.

whome: congratulations on mastering google.

October 06, 2005
Canadian Bloggers Are Not 'Pussies'

Siri Agrell, writing for the Canadian site Maisonneuve, wonders why the Canadian blogosphere has not uncovered a major scandal or exposed political shenanigans in the national government. Agrell notes the long track record of American bloggers in uncovering journalistic malpractice and governmental stupidity, resulting in high-profile career damage to luminaries like Dan Rather, Trent Lott, Eason Jordan, and others. Agrell suggests that Canadian bloggers are "pussies", and uses me as an example:

US political bloggers have appeared on the cover of the New York Times magazine and were accredited to cover the 2004 Republican and Democratic conventions. But in Canada, blogs remain the domain of pundits and policy wonks, an outlet for little more than chest-thumping, crystal-ball gazing, slander and self-promotion.

Only one major Canadian political story broken by bloggers has made its way through to the mainstream media and into our consciousness: the leaking of Jean Brault's testimony to the Gomery Inquiry. The leak revealed a new dimension of the sponsorship scandal and showed us just how powerful an independent online voice could be. Unfortunately, in this case, the voice was American—that of Edward Morrissey, aka Captain Ed, who influenced the course of Canadian politics from his Minnesota-based Captain's Quarters blog. ...

But the fact remains that, in a year when American bloggers led major stories on both sides of the border and Canadian politics reached new levels of intrigue and animosity, political blogs in this country made little—if any—impact. McMillan places part of the blame on a disinterested public and a media that largely ignores the sites as a source of information or ideas.

While I appreciate the recognition from Agrell, I have to disagree with the thrust of the headline. The Canadian blogosphere may not have the saturation of its American cousin, but that does take time to develop. Political wars don't play as much of a role in Canadian lives as it does with Americans, and plenty of both will argue that likely indicates better mental health north of the border.

More than that, though, the article tends to downplay courageous Canadian bloggers. Kate MacMillan actually played a role in my publication of the Gomery testimony, which she appears in this article too modest to acknowledge; she wanted the story to come out and sacrificed the scoop to make sure it did. Stephen Janke defied the publication ban and linked me during the Gomery testimony, as did Neale News, despite the threat of prosecution for doing so -- showing a bit more bravery than most of the Canadian press at the time. John at Newsbeat1 has already built a following doing the kind of reporting that Agrell wants, and he does so with some risk, if readers pay attention to the nature of his prolific links.

Canadian bloggers work hard to position themselves for the inevitable day when their fellow countrymen decide that their diversity-challenged media have not served them well and begin to demand the answers to questions Americans learned to ask after Watergate. If they're not quite reaching the traffic levels of American blogs now, they will soon enough. I've met them and know their mettle -- and they will be ready when the time comes. (h/t: Canadian reader Tim H.)
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005574.php#comments

Another f---> "Right in der fuehrer's face"-- Spike Jones (1911-1965)>>>

Canada is in the Grips of a "Liberal Orthodoxy". Canadian Bloggers therefore need to be a bit on the unorthodox side of life in order to baffle and confound the orthodox.
Offer alternative choices, offer alternative news. Laugh at the Liberal establishment. Become the opposition if the political parties on the right can't get their act together. Work with them if need be. The Canadian Government gets daffy when folks up there talk of "Breaking Away". Talk of a Canadian Confederacy. Talk about issues that cause the left discomfort. Liberals are a thin skinned bunch. Start a Canadian Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Use Canadian sensibilities and traditional Canadian values.
Pick fights wisely, smile and be happy.
Posted by: Borgia [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 7, 2005 04:46 AM>>>
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005574.php#comments

Testing only

This blog has been taken over by a bunch of childish idiots who are simply having personal conversation among themselves and offering little for other readers.

One doesn't feel like placing a thoughtful item here since it will be lost among the idiotic posts around betting on the accuracy of other data and whether or not one has the ability to do the research to prove their points and so on.

In other words it's all about the posters not the post. A regular pissing contest.

Kate, no one needs to put up more than one or two posts per topic. otherwise it's just a stupid chat room and that what it is now ... a stupid chat room.

Where does one obtain an avatar?

Very disappointed Kate ... you are letting the inmates run the institution ...

Meanwhile ... I nominate SDA as the blog on the quickest slide down to oblivion.

Maybe you could get some rap music to happen in the background to make these fools feel more at home. Perhaps the Disney Corp. will offer to buy you out.

They could rename it "Small Dead Ducks"

I think that the announcement that Pettigrews chauffeur has taken "leave" shows that the Canadian bogging community CAN have a significant effect on politics and are NOT "pussies"

Keep up the good work.

Horny Toad

Duke: One may obtain an avatar whenever one captures a Hindu deity reincarnated in human or animal form.

Mark
Ottawa

Hey Maz2, try and keep this thread on topic! It's not about Blogging Pussies, it's about immigration statistics!
;-)
Hey, maybe we've gotten something here. The only time Maz posts an on-topic comment is when the whole comments thread goes way OT!

Duke, quit whining! What's wrong with occaisional chat (even if it's gotten pretty childish). Do you really expect us to act like stereotypical Canuckistani's mildly commenting once or twice per post and then moving on to the next post? Sounds too much like some government regulated pussy-blog to me!
Take it easy! Look at LGF! They're one of the most popular blogs out there with a regular readership and commenter-conversationalists.
If you don't like it then don't keep reading the comments.

I completely disagree that we limit comments to one or two posts. There are some topics which are more important to me than others and if I'm in a good discussion such as Peter, Anonalogue, and Elizabeth we having about immigration, we shouldn't necessarily stop at 2 comments. Sorry, this was my third comment on this post. And to cheap shot Kate when she has created one of the more successful blogs in Canada is just that, cheap.

This makes me speechless :) Very well done! phentermine ( http://phentermine.webpark.pl/ )

"fundamental right of family reunification"

Librano$$$$$ Bullsh!t

This Thread was a total fluff entertainment.
The main statistic everyone missed was simply that polls are political tools and just as suited to being sprayed upon by dogs, as are poles and hydrants.

There was some humour, and it was fun to follow, but it was TV quality entertainmet.

The most useless bit of professorial bull ever devised goes something like, results are accurate to plus or minus two percent 19 times out of 20.

I can recall polls taken before elections that were out by 30 to 35%.

Meaning they were designed to sway voters, not give an accurate reflection of anything.

Does this link work?
http://My.Opera.com/T-G/
Nothing to do with Opera btw.
This one works... great fun! Manolo's shoe blog
http://shoeblogs.com enjoy, '3s TG

Boys you need a life. Emmigration is a real problem. I don't care what the stats are.
I'am new to this blog site and this dribble is unbelievable. I would like to see questions that some of you out there may have some answers. The Media will not or cannot investigate. Why do chariable organizations have foundations with thousands of dollars sitting in them and tell the public through free media stories (feel good stories) how they cannot feed the poor?

Sorry EGG, but the fundamental human right of family reunification is total BS. It is a nice thought, but VERY abused in practice. I used to work as an assistant to an MP in a high-immigration area and one of my jobs was handling the immigration cases coming through the MP's doors. The problems? Let's start with fake adoptions. A Canadian immigrant family "adopts" a 15 yr-old girl from their homeland. When the adopted girl gets here, a few years later she brings in her biological family. It's not supposed to happen like that. There's supposed to be tracking mechanisms to prevent it, but not only does government tend to lose the information, but if the immigration QUOTA hasn't been met by year-end, the immigration officers approve a flood of non-qualified immigrants. I've seen it happen with my own eyes.
Another situation that arises is the young immigrant coming here who then wants to sponsor his elderly parents and extended family. I agree with the concept, but in the case of an Afghani friend of mine, his 60 year old mother had Tuberculosis! The case was denied because of that originally, but eventually she was let in after she found a doctor to declare her free of TB. So now we have an elderly person who is going to be using more of our taxpayer-funded healthcare and who's highly contagious TB is in "remission". Don't forget the elderly father as well. Again, this Afghani is a friend of mine who had 3 jobs here in Canada so that he could afford to bring his parents over, but still I think we need to start thinking of Canada first.

People, hover your pointers on "not factually correct"'s moniker to reveal the email address, which is apparently hosted at a far-left moonie site called pleasegodkillbush.com.

See how scary the left is?

Well, I tried to have a grownup conversation, I posted a bunch of data, etc., but Peter and the rest of them kept dragging the level of conversation down. Appararently making anus jokes is OK, and making fun of my nongratuitous use of Bayesian Inference or anything form of advanced thinking is something that makes people giggle. Nice! At least I can say I'm not a pussy, and not too timorous to broach a grownup subject like immigration.

All this thread has done is fulfill what I predicted at the beginning: that Canadian bloggers are such PC-chilled pussies that they would rather attack a guy for making a comment on an Untouchable subject matter like immigration...than attack the actual govenment that is implementing a policy that a) Canadians are nearly unanimously opposed to, and b) is quantifiably a bad thing.

Thanks for proving my point Peter, EKG, Tony, and the rest. Have a nice, safe, happy, shiny day.

"It's really the last resort of a failing intellect."

Maybe in corrupt pollster/adscammers minds who wish to stifle debate , but vulgarity can find an effective place in most discusions.

On the other hand, any support of the Librano$$$$$$$$$$$ doctrine is proof of any empty place where intellect should be.

All Librano$$$$$$$ and their choir of shrill neutered saprano$$$$$$$ are bought with OUR stolen money.

Here's a good response to the question of whether we're pussies:

"I think that the announcement that Pettigrews chauffeur has taken "leave" shows that the Canadian bogging community CAN have a significant effect on politics and are NOT "pussies"

Keep up the good work.

Horny Toad"

Perhaps now we can stop calling each other by the names of bodyparts with which people play and fornicate.

Would some guest blogger pls post a new post? Poor Kate. No way to whip y'all.

And people, Anonologue is entitled to his/her opinion (I say his/her 'cause I don't know whether Anonologue has a pussy or a winky). Anonologue has provided reasonable evidence, Peter. No need to show off how much you know about polling- just accept that polls were provided. That was off-topic, btw, I believe. Topic is about pussies, I think.

BTW, Tony Big Word Guy, you forgot me! I'm one of those who comment! Gee, you must be getting old there, man.

And I've a bit of new stuff at CTS. My take on the tax cuts Ralph Goodale "promised" just yesterday to the Commons Industry Committee:

http://thecanadiansentinel.blogspot.com

And, Anonologue, I agree you're no pussy. Neither am I. I just like 'em. And I'm not afraid to expose Librano corruption. I hunger at the prospect of taking them down via an expose...

This thread ,I believe shows Anon is no pussy!

I does occur to me that perhaps for some of you folks who have nothing better to do than complain about a conversation that you were not even part of, it might be better if you jumped in and tried to raise the bar. I've seen others do it.

Or perhaps I'm mistaken. Perhaps only Liberal Prime Ministers are allow to define what's Canadian and what's not. I just wanna' know, will proposed changes to the elections act make those two postings mandatory?

Boris Yeltsin once said about communism, "Everything which was not permitted was forbidden. Whatever was permitted was mandatory. Citizens were shackled in their actions by the universal passion for banning things." Yup, that's us, right on the CUSP: The Canadian Union of Socialist Provinces.

Yours,
The Man From P.U.S.S.I.E.
Process Undergirding Systems Support Infrastructure Engineering.
Bring us your kitty, and we'll build a bridge out of 'er.

My Canadian cousin is wierd.
He went to a place called Pussies.
A cat fight broke out.
And he complained!

"It does occur to me that perhaps for some of you folks who have nothing better to do than complain about a conversation that you were not even part of, it might be better if you jumped in and tried to raise the bar. I've seen others do it."

Fair enough Tony and Anonologue.

The question "are Canadian bloggers pussies?" is based on a comparison with the US which doesn't make sense, because our institutions and our national characteristics are so different. In the Rathergate incident, bloggers found something fishy about a story, just a small detail, and the MSM picked it up, and pretty soon it became a huge national story. Up here, our "huge story" is happening every day -- we have a kleptocratic government who won the last election with laundered taxpayer money, with more sordid details pouring in daily -- but our major media consider coverage of such abuse of taxpayer money to be mere obligatory detail on the way to the holy land of lifestyle/celebrity crap. In the worst case -- the CBC -- they try to ignore as much Liberal crime as they can get away with, and then, when their hand is forced by some minimal standard of credibility, they couch all the sordid revelations in the context of an ongoing assault on the common good by "scary" racist western christians.

So if bloggers in Canada, average citizens for the most part, bear constant witness to the corruption and hypocrisy and criminality of a government, while the MSM focuses on entertainment, who are the pussies?

Mainstream producers and editors and to a lesser extent journalists who know about and actively participate in and assist the corrupt culture of the Liberals are pussies. People who consider it rude to publicly consider the character, motivations and behaviour of any auspicious functionary are pussies too, and in this latter group I include commenters who didactically attempt to nudge people off the topic of Liberal malfeasance, who warn of bad outcomes that would come from noticing such things, and who try to dissolve in petty details the anger of those who do go ahead and notice what the Liberals are doing to this country.

Kate, AGWN, the people at the Shotgun -- Steel, O'Neill, Libin, et al -- they are surely the un-pussies. People who read these blogs know that topics have been broached which were later picked up, unattributed, in the MSM, but in language so couched as to remove the important point. Since a big story is by definition one that gets overt MSM coverage, to blame Canadian bloggers for not breaking "the big one" is like exonerating criminals for their actions, while blaming the police for not solving the root causes of crime.

I'm not sure that pure unmitigated anger is the best policy, EBD. Surely if one wants to connect with the social reality of the conversations that spontaneously erupt in comments threads, a little humour goes a long way. I also understand that the record of a real conversation may look a bit silly in retrospect to those who were not there at the time, transcripts are like that. It's just that it seems to me that anger without humor is a bit like running a hot engine without lubrication.

I more or less completely agree with your thesis as just outlined; well said sir. But if I allow my anger to blind me to the contexts that the ship called my life is sailing though, then the resulting too-taught stays may snap the mast. As captain of said ship, I'm responsible for preventing that.

Hnkwaah? I don't have the first clue what you are referring to. Did I mention or encourage or demonstrate "pure unmitigated anger", or say that it was the "best policy"?

And I didn't even mention the completely OT conversation in the thread above.

I must be a raving lunatic then bc I didn't see much anger in EBD's last comment... only a bit of frustration with some frankness to help the easily amused pay attention. I found him to be quite lucid and stable sounding :-)
I can't even watch news on CTV, A-channel, CBC et al anymore bc it is so "don't worry, be happy" oriented and never seriously critical of government.. always announcing Martin edicts of "may" and "might" and "over 5 years" etc as real policies that we should all kiss his arse for in joyous worship... it makes me wonder all of the time where the real tele-journalists have run off to.
It's a sad state of affairs... my fantasy is that Ralph Klein will offer to buy the CBC, privatize it and staff it with hot-blooded semi-libertarian Western separatists or fresh-faced graduates looking for a career-maker of a story to liven things up re investigative tele-journalism especially re government scandals and lies... am I stark raving mad to hope for something so entertaining? :-)
EBD's comment was a harbour in the storm in comparison to the penis posts unless I'm just completely blinded by worship :-)

Oh, sorry EBD, I forgot to erase my memory of the last few weeks comments in these parts. How can you not have a clue as to what I'm referring to, considering your comment above and your words at SDA at 2005-10-02 16:16 and following: http://tinyurl.com/c55l3 . You've clearly demonstrated anger towards those who aren't as angry as you, not that we all don't do that.

I agree with your thesis. I said "well said, sir". In what way exactly does that deny me the option to riff off the aromas of your fine cooking? We're, what, 115 comments into a thread, nobody's reading it any more, and we're somehow supposed to believe that the context is irrelevent, people's history is irrelevent, but somehow we're suddenly back on topic?

I am not a topic digesting ideology producing automaton. I am human. I like this soap opera we've got going here. So sue me, my lawyer's name is Milton Berle.

Obligatory On-Topic Reference
Pussie: http://tinyurl.com/ch3kq

Cripes. It wasn't a thesis, it was a comment.

I went to the link you provided, and I still don't see how I "clearly demonstrated anger towards those who aren't as angry" as I apparently am. But even if I did, for you to directly respond to my post here with an unannounced comment on an unrelated thread from five days ago is inconsiderate to Kate's site and her visitors. This isn't a chat room.

I will endeavor to make this my last ever off-topic post. Full stop.

Ach, I'm so bad with words, I meant comment, not thesis.

I completely agree with your 05:23 PM *comment*.

I went to the deli this morning, our usual motley crew. Fred and Sally were there, and George, and Betty. There were visitors there too, varied folks, some found the atmosphere interesting, others made faces.

Over time the deli has become an intersting place. In the morning, people read the papers and get depressed by it all, and in the evening they gather at the bar and have a laugh over it all.

One day the government came in and said, we're here to help you. You can't chat in here! Only officially sanctioned statements of policy are good for you.

But the good folks of the deli rose up. Sod your sanctions, they cried, we shall chat in this room or in that room. The best you can hope for is to drive us underground. We've got rooms there too.

Kate come back soon, the chatroom atmosphere you asked not to indulge in, well..

I swear I never thought I'd see the day when good honest folks simply hanging around chatting would become a bad thing. Perhaps I'm really not human after all, and I just don't get it.

CNEWS POLL: As at October 8, 2005 8:04am

The Fraser Institute is suggesting new immigrants are a burden on taxpayers and lower the standard of living in Canada. Do you agree?

Yes 72%
No 22%
Not sure 6%

Total Votes for this Question: 4710

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/polls/poll_result.html

Anonalogue said:

"My best guess is that Canadian bloggers - people in general, really - are too ego driven; everyone wants to be popular, and even the dimmest blogger understands they will be shunned for making politically incorrect posts. So everyone plays it safe, and The Left gets another free pass. Popularity wins out over truth, justice, and virtue. So it goes."

[snip]

As some guy once said:

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."

"Don't be like a puppy chasing the tennis balls the MSM throws to distract you from what is important. Set your own agenda, man."

I agree. Completely. I've lost readers on the Chronicles because I've used the term "wetbacks" to refer to illegal mexican immigrants entering the US. The term is completely accurate but not politically correct. Some of those lost readers are themselves conservative bloggers and I would refer to them as pussies because of their reluctance to call a spade a spade. The same goes for those who avoid the issues of homosexuality and pedophilia. It's not politically correct to connect the dots with these two so most dont. It's a big social issue and needs to be addressed.

Before the flaming starts I should mention that SSM was addressed within the blogosphere but that was an attempt to put a band-aid on a broken leg. Put simply, there was alot of whining about SSM with no one addressing the root cause which is homosexuality.

So, again, I have to agree with the premise that canadian bloggers are, generally, pussies. Overall they're too politically correct and not willing to tackle the issues head on.

Oh, I almost forgot. I've gotten some of my best "boo's" over using the term "sand monkey" to refer to islamic terrorists. The sand monkey song didn't go over very well and was pulled but it'll be up again with the next audio rotation.

If I want another friend I'll get another dog...

Oh sorry, I was looking for the guys can...seems I stumbled upon a chess laden tea party for metrosexuals...

;-)

EBD,

Learn the uses of the word thesis will you. It doesn't always refer to a lengthy document.
That is what I mean about the lack of education nowaday. You make my point.

FYI
3 entries found for thesis.
the·sis Audio pronunciation of "thesis" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (thss)
n. pl. the·ses (-sz)

1. A proposition that is maintained by argument.
2. A dissertation advancing an original point of view as a result of research, especially as a requirement for an academic degree.
3. A hypothetical proposition, especially one put forth without proof.
4. The first stage of the Hegelian dialectic process.
5.
1. The long or accented part of a metrical foot, especially in quantitative verse.
2. The unaccented or short part of a metrical foot, especially in accentual verse.
6. Music. The accented section of a measure.

To prove I'm no pussy blogger, I, in the future, will indeed make postings on matters which have almost not been discussed at all. Politically incorrect? Quite possibly. Controversial? For damn sure!

Check from time to time:

http://thecanadiansentinel.blogspot.com

Hey, Richard Evans, I would submit that it's ok to call terrorists whatever we wish. For example, I, in conversation, have called Osama Bin Laden "That mountain goat". I can't believe we're supposed to be PC about those sand spiders who go around chopping off innocent peoples' heads on tv. Hey, we good people who are conservative have been called horrible things, right? And it isn't considered P. in-C. Think about that.

I agree Sentinel. That's the point. There are very few of us willing to do this... Those who don't or can't are, for all intents and purposes, the pussies referred to in the post.

Quintessential pussiness 1 = letting metrosexual good for nothing PEI be a province and giving it more representation in Ottawa than Alberta. That province is the size of an Alberta ranch with Anne of Green Gables on CBC being it's only claim to fame - holy pussy of us to not make them part of NB.

Quintessential pussiness 2 = not separting from those maggots in Ottawa who ONLY give a flying poop about votes in Toronto and Montreal. [this means every other province outside of that corridor]If you believe otherwise and that things are going to get better SEE A DOCTOR NOW.

Quintessential pussiness 3 = enforced francois bilingualism in any province in Canada where there isn't ONE unilingual french citizen and where the Chinese to french (by french re chinese I mean even anyone who can even just read french) ratio alone is 10,000 to 1, and then STILL ALLOWING Quebec to bend English over a counter and fornicate it all day and night long with their RACIST language laws.
[WHY DOES ANY SELF RESPECTING ANGLOPHONE KEEP VOTING FOR REGIMES THAT ALLOW THIS???

My conclusion being... Canadian [english, in particular] bloggers are pussies because English Canada is. Good on Quebec for always trying to improve their power-base... but they only succeed because English Canada so feebly acquiesces time after time. Example being, in a nation of "two solitudes" I don't see any blogs at all working over the English/French debate... why not? It's representitive of all of the cowtowing in Ottawa on all levels... so it's real. Everyone outside of Ottawa whines about how ridiculous it is that Quebec only gets what it wants because of a real threat of separation but I don't see any blogging talking seriosuly about it. This internet silence on something that could easily start a debate in any part of canada at any time in a pub with great passion speaks volumes of our pussiness... so the article is right.

Quebec's power to get what it demands is now in decline with the rise of separatism in the West. It's going to be risky for Ottawa to bend over the counter for Quebec now lest doing so will only serve to expand the movement in the West. Or is that what the "Liberals" want? Do they want to cut off one half of the nation so they can fully dominate the other?

Worth thinking about...

no I feel the situation is more naive (in Ottawa) than that. I think most in Ottawa believe that nobody else except for Quebec would have to balls to truly separate and they credit the language and unique identity factor in Quebec as being the only kind of glue that could build a bloc of votes large enough to break away. They really don't feel threatened by even Alberta... and truly Ralph Klein has backed away from almost every sabre rattle he's done... so I don't think the gears of Ottawa, which is composed mainly of Quebecors because of the requirement to be bilingual, feel any worry at all about anything. The field is just as tilted as ever in my humble opinion but the West is in the infancy of learning how to walk... it's an interesting decade coming up...

You have come late to this thread. It is long and time prevents you from reading everything here.
This well help you.
EDB Oct7 5:23 [Spot on}
Tony Oct7 6:15 [Also, but with contest]
Meursault Oct 7 7:06pm [Where have all the tele-journalists run off to?]
Richard Evans Oct8 12:20
Meursault Oct9 1:41 [ The amazing question..mystifies me about Canadians, pussies ? or just asleep at the wheel?]

Non-Pussie Blogger
Good points about sticking to Principle where one can risk being an outcast with only the dog as your friend. I advocate packs of government inspected weed on all corner store shelves, beside cigarettes, and have been avoided as bit of a wing nut. Too out there. Too non-cool.

Well screw cool! You look into how kids get hooked into drugs and you will be of the same opinion. You have two choices with pot. Eliminate it or legalize it. The country could go broke trying to eliminate it. It’s burning up police resources for nothing. No gains whatever.

I personally don’t use the stuff. I have friends who do. They have used it for 25 years. Aspirin will do more damage than pot ever will.

Louis Satchmo ,Armstrong, brilliant musician, publicly admits to being a pot smoker in public interviews. Louis is still brilliant. What’s the point of telling Satchmo to quit?

Speaking out as a Non-pussie Blogger, that is. 73s TG

Thanks for addressing my above question, Meursault. You're probably correct in your analysis of the current situation and where things will go to if the Libmob remains in power.

I believe Ralph Klein indicated this is his last term as premier. Wonder who'll lead the Tories to their next Alta victory? What kind of person and leader will it be? Would they have the charisma to lead the province towards liberty?

Of course, the results of the next federal election are the main thing to consider.

Yes, the coming decade will indeed be fascinating and, perhaps, exciting, one way or another. Don't, however, ask me to make any predictions; I'm no Nostradamus, after all...

Another possible proof to consider: On TCS, I did a post on a biased msm headline which falsely and w/o evidence claimed Mr. Harper was angry about the few dissidents led by Carol Jamieson. Only hours later the headline was changed. I don't know if my post had anything to do with it, but I doubt if it would've been changed if no one at all said, "Hey!". Maybe someone read my post and did say something...

A small victory, if the case. Nothing big, but I'll surely do something big if the opportunity arises...

And I'm not alone.