Mt.Logan Gone > enter Mt. Trudeau
One In A Million
Mount Trudeau. Now why it had to be Canada's Highest Mt. instead of an
obscure mountain i don't understand.
And of course Chretien had to get in on this today too. He stated that at
onetime him & pierre were going climb from the bottom to top. Would
somebody please catch this dillusional idiot put him in a rubber room
before he hurts himself physically.
Back to the honourary mountain naming,
perhaps it's to signify the highest amount of debt for canada started by
P.E.T. and it symbolizes his arrogance . Only in Canada you say .
Pity,pity,pity .
--
$$$$$$Denni$
Spellcheck & Grammatical errors !
I don't have time to use Spellcheck
or correct grammatical errors .
I'm doing Brain surgery right now.
HG
One In A Million <Spamp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:YeUC5.2367$Tf.5...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
These anti-Trudeau types are really having a hard time with this. Trudeau
was voted top Canadian newsmaker of the century in 1999. Polls show that if
he were running today, he would be prime minister. Canadians like Trudeau -
deal with it.
Darin
shoved up his ass.
I say he is just one of many fucking Liberal asshole down,
who is next.
--
I would like to see things from your perspective, but I
can't shove my head that far up my ass.
Darin
mountain and when he breaks his fucking neck we can plant
him next to Trudeau.
I do like your explanation on why they choose Mt. Logan
for re-naming.
--
I would like to see things from your perspective, but I
can't shove my head that far up my ass.
One In A Million wrote in message ...
Lyle Gardiner
PM.
One In A Million <Spamp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:YeUC5.2367$Tf.5...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
Trikky
said:
> It was announced today that Canada's highest peak Mt.Logan was re-named
> Mount Trudeau. Now why it had to be Canada's Highest Mt. instead of an
> obscure mountain i don't understand.
From my point of view it's not the naming of the mountain that's the
problem, but the actual name that is being reported.
Mount Pierre Elliot Trudeau. What a stupid name. Mount Trudeau would have
had the same effect...and not sounded so daft.
--
Trikky T; Vancouver, B.C. Canada
Remove UPPERCASE letters from Email address to reply.
Matthew Wulfman
country (unlike Africa), you really have to look right back to colonial
administration. A few dumb or best that could be negotiated
treaties/arbitrary decisions will buy a few _centuries_ of grief.
Compared to the decision to redesignate the Temple Mount as Dome of the
Rock somewhere around 700 AD (and the current fall out) we don't have
problems. Of course, that falls back in part to Greek and Roman
colonial administration. The Babylonian administration, in our
omniscient retrospect, is also guilty of gross negligence and systematic
cruelty, not to mention cultural elitism and bureacratic rigidity.
As for those who don't like the renaming, unless you are ready to rename
it as the natives referred to it, your point is diminished
considerably. Trudeau, warts and all, increased this nation's bearing
and significance in the world. If you can't cope with the him raining
on Alberta's parade over 20 years ago... I don't see how we can with a
straight face post peace keepers anywhere there is *GASP* a historical
grievance. Of course, Alberta is still economically oppressed and its
trauma lasted centuries so I guess we're morally obligated to keep
whining.
I sit in Alberta cause I need to be here for now and mutter 'cause I
don't like some of its politics and while I'm here I listen to y'all sit
in Canada 'cause you need to be here and mutter 'cause you don't like
its politics.
Yeah, whatever...
Matthew
One In A Million wrote:
>
> It was announced today that Canada's highest peak Mt.Logan was re-named
> Mount Trudeau. Now why it had to be Canada's Highest Mt. instead of an
> obscure mountain i don't understand.
One In A Million
Laurentiens instead of One of Canada's
most well known Mt's in B.C.?
--
$$$$$$Denni$
Spellcheck & Grammatical errors !
I don't have time to use Spellcheck
or correct grammatical errors .
I'm doing Brain surgery right now.
"Matthew Wulfman" <wul...@munged.it> wrote in message
news:39DC90CD...@munged.it...
Kurt Sims
Million" <Spamp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It was announced today that Canada's highest peak Mt.Logan was re-named
> Mount Trudeau. Now why it had to be Canada's Highest Mt. instead of an
> obscure mountain i don't understand.
I don't mind the idea of naming a mountain after PET, hell I don't even
mind them renaming Logan. I do wish however that they had of discussed
it with people before just doing it.
At least make people think they were part of the decision making
process. Doing it they way they did is a little arrogant.
Kurt
--
To reply by email please remove the two spams out of my return address.
One In A Million
--
$$$$$$Denni$
Spellcheck & Grammatical errors !
I don't have time to use Spellcheck
or correct grammatical errors .
I'm doing Brain surgery right now.
"Kurt Sims" <sspa...@uspamcalgary.ca> wrote in message
news:sspamims-9E153B...@news.ucalgary.ca...
Paige Smyth
news:B6019C25.2BD6%trikky...@canada.com...
> > Mount Trudeau. Now why it had to be Canada's Highest Mt. instead of an
> > obscure mountain i don't understand.
> problem, but the actual name that is being reported.
> Mount Pierre Elliot Trudeau. What a stupid name. Mount Trudeau would
have
> had the same effect...and not sounded so daft.
> --
> Trikky T; Vancouver, B.C. Canada
> Remove UPPERCASE letters from Email address to reply.
>
as a result of Yukon land claim settlements, the government does not havethe
authority to assign place names without the approval of the aboriginals.
Green Octopus
> These anti-Trudeau types are really having a hard
> time with this. Trudeau was voted top Canadian
> newsmaker of the century in 1999.
By who? The CBC?
> Polls show that if he were running today, he would
> be prime minister.
Well, that's not surprising. Trudeau is leagues above our present
embarrassment Jean Chretien.
> Canadians like Trudeau - deal with it.
You forgot to type "stupid" before Canadians, which I would agree with as
the majority of Canadians are STOOPID!!!
Green Octopus
> That's the liberal way, not giving a damn what
> anyone else thinks .
And yet, the stupid voting public will re-elect those retards come the next
federal election. Why should the liberals care about the public? They know
the public is too ignorant to care for themselves.
Green Octopus
> Well we will likely have an opportunity to review
> the decision. I hear that as a result of Yukon land
> claim settlements, the government does not havethe
> authority to assign place names without the
> approval of the aboriginals.
Why? Are you aboriginal? A large chest of colourful beads should dazzle
their eye to muster the requisite approval. God knows, it's worked in the
past.
Green Octopus
> Quebec, part of the Laurentiens instead of One
> of Canada's most well known Mt's in B.C.?
Can you think of a better way for the present day liberals to carry out a
long standing liberal tradition of fucking over western Canadians than to
pay homage to a man who did just that for so many years by naming a mountain
after him in our very own backyard?
Green Octopus
> From my point of view it's not the naming of
> the mountain that's the problem, but the actual
> name that is being reported. Mount Pierre Elliot
> Trudeau. What a stupid name. Mount Trudeau
> would have had the same effect...and not sounded
> so daft.
It's daft any way you slice it.
Paige Smyth
news:Ru1D5.2531$Tf.5...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
> Still then, My question, why not a mountain in Quebec, part of the
> Laurentiens instead of One of Canada's
> most well known Mt's in B.C.?
More to the point why not rename the pimple that they call a mountain in his
back yard? Who the hell was Real anyways?
--
These comments are meant to offend everyone equally. If, for some reason
you are not offended, please write me with a description of yourself
including your name, race, weight, religious views, political party, strong
opinions, physical disabilities and anything else that you are touchy about,
and I will try to offend you in a future comment. Complaints should be
emailed to: bit...@likeiactuallycare.com
zub...@my-deja.com
> Still then, My question, why not a mountain in Quebec, part of the
> Laurentiens instead of One of Canada's
> most well known Mt's in B.C.?
Perhaps spellcheck may not be necessary, but a geography lesson
wouldn't hurt.
Mt Logan/PET is in the YUKON.
http://www.ualberta.ca/~gbarron/route/logan.html
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Matthew Wulfman
mountain is something to be named after people/ships whatever at a whim:
Although you or I may not form a part of it, there is a consensus
nationally and abroad that Trudeau was the cat's ass. Welcome to
getting trampled by consensus (and don't be stupid/blind enough to claim
that Albertan brand consensus/majority government doesn't trample
anyone.) The Liberals didn't poll us but I think that nationally they
gambled correctly and all the whining, bitter satire, scatology etc in
the world/the west doesn't and won't change that.
The Canadian national psyche/mythology of being cultured and culturally
sensitive wears Trudeau like a badge. That he trampled on western
Canada's ability to make petroleum revenue is not a sexy grievance nor
will it ever be. In fact, it will become a progressively LESS sexy
grievance as folks like myself say "get over it already" and as
petroleum becomes a less and less sexy/politically acceptable source of
fuel and revenue. Alberta in particular runs are real risk of being
stigmatized in this regards and seems loathe to admit that the light in
the tunnel is in fact a train, however far off. Horses came and went,
so did steam...
I do not claim the trends are entirely fair but it pays to aware of it
and I do believe the graffitti is on the wall.
Also, ironically, seeing as out west we have "real" tm mountains, it is
here that one would come to give a "superlative" mountain the name of a
"superlative" prime minister. That mountain is part of national
mythology and is being allocated to a national figure.
Matthew
One In A Million wrote:
>
> Still then, My question, why not a mountain in Quebec, part of the
> Laurentiens instead of One of Canada's
> most well known Mt's in B.C.?
> --
> $$$$$$Denni$
>
> Spellcheck & Grammatical errors !
> I don't have time to use Spellcheck
> or correct grammatical errors .
> I'm doing Brain surgery right now.
> > One In A Million wrote:
> > >
> > > It was announced today that Canada's highest peak Mt.Logan was re-named
> > > Mount Trudeau. Now why it had to be Canada's Highest Mt. instead of an
> > > obscure mountain i don't understand.
> > > And of course Chretien had to get in on this today too. He stated that
> at
> > > onetime him & pierre were going climb from the bottom to top. Would
> > > somebody please catch this dillusional idiot put him in a rubber room
> > > before he hurts himself physically.
> > > Back to the honourary mountain naming,
> > > perhaps it's to signify the highest amount of debt for canada started by
> > > P.E.T. and it symbolizes his arrogance . Only in Canada you say .
> > > Pity,pity,pity .
> > >
> > > --
> > > $$$$$$Denni$
> > >
> > > Spellcheck & Grammatical errors !
> > > I don't have time to use Spellcheck
> > > or correct grammatical errors .
> > > I'm doing Brain surgery right now.
--
-----
Please note my email provider is not really in Italy. However, if you
combine
the username and the nucleus.com from the header you'll be right on
target.
This arrangement seems to save me both spam and long distance charges
;-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[-: All connections to my IP address are logged to multiple locations.
:-]
==========================================================================
Matthew Wulfman
have to capitalize the "l" in liberal. After all, the entire rhetoric,
ideal and mythology of liberalism is to make a more comfortable
environment for people to have their own ideas, ideals and lifestyles -
often in fact being to liberal for me.
Second of all, I have a laugh of derision for anyone who would claim
that an lopsided/decisive conservative majority is any more concerned
with minority opinion. Would you like that Brooklyn Bridge delivered
via air or ground?
nuff sed
One In A Million wrote:
>
> That's the liberal way, not giving a damn what anyone else thinks .
>
> --
> $$$$$$Denni$
>
> Spellcheck & Grammatical errors !
> I don't have time to use Spellcheck
> or correct grammatical errors .
> I'm doing Brain surgery right now.
> "Kurt Sims" <sspa...@uspamcalgary.ca> wrote in message
> news:sspamims-9E153B...@news.ucalgary.ca...
> > In article <YeUC5.2367$Tf.5...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>, "One In A
> > Million" <Spamp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > It was announced today that Canada's highest peak Mt.Logan was re-named
> > > Mount Trudeau. Now why it had to be Canada's Highest Mt. instead of an
> > > obscure mountain i don't understand.
> >
> > I don't mind the idea of naming a mountain after PET, hell I don't even
> > mind them renaming Logan. I do wish however that they had of discussed
> > it with people before just doing it.
> >
> > At least make people think they were part of the decision making
> > process. Doing it they way they did is a little arrogant.
> >
> > Kurt
> >
> > --
> > To reply by email please remove the two spams out of my return address.
--
One In A Million
Thanks , I can't believe i did that .
It must of been from the anticipated trip to vancouver that made me do it.
--
$$$$$$Denni$
Spellcheck & Grammatical errors !
I don't have time to use Spellcheck
or correct grammatical errors .
I'm doing Brain surgery right now.
<zub...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8rj1rj$c0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > Still then, My question, why not a mountain in Quebec, part of the
> > Laurentiens instead of One of Canada's
> > most well known Mt's in B.C.?
>
Paige Smyth
>
> > Still then, My question, why not a mountain in Quebec, part of the
> > Laurentiens instead of One of Canada's
> > most well known Mt's in B.C.?
>
> Perhaps spellcheck may not be necessary, but a geography lesson
> wouldn't hurt.
>
> Mt Logan/PET is in the YUKON.
>
institute that Erik took history lessons.
Matthew Wulfman
well we see the other's stupidity and not our own. You or I can
righteously/condescendingly say, "They know the public is too ignorant
to care for themselves.", and it'll just be two bitter people bitching,
the one with no more credibility than the other even though they are
saying the opposite thing. Of course, if you disagree with me you must
be stupid ;-) Conveniently, once I decide you're stupid I don't have to
consider what you say... right?
Green Octopus wrote:
>
> "One In A Million" wrote in message...
> > That's the liberal way, not giving a damn what
> > anyone else thinks .
>
> And yet, the stupid voting public will re-elect those retards come the next
> federal election. Why should the liberals care about the public? They know
> the public is too ignorant to care for themselves.
--
One In A Million
you too .
--
$$$$$$Denni$
Spellcheck & Grammatical errors !
I don't have time to use Spellcheck
or correct grammatical errors .
I'm doing Brain surgery right now.
"Paige Smyth" <tlc...@rapidnet.net> wrote in message
news:39dd1...@rapidnet.net...
Green Octopus
> The parable of the plank/splinter applies. It is a
> joke on us all how well we see the other's stupidity
> and not our own. You or I can righteously/
> condescendingly say, "They know the public is too
> ignorant to care for themselves.", and it'll just be
> two bitter people bitching, the one with no more
> credibility than the other even though they are
> saying the opposite thing. Of course, if you
> disagree with me you must be stupid ;-) Conveniently,
> once I decide you're stupid I don't have to consider
> what you say... right?
Hey, Matt, I'm just trying to blend in.
Sp...@planet.earth
<Spamp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>It was announced today that Canada's highest peak Mt.Logan was re-named
>Mount Trudeau. Now why it had to be Canada's Highest Mt. instead of an
what a fucking joke......exscuse my language....How nice that must be
for the late Sir Logan....
Whats next?? Chretin (notice the spelling) going to the base of Mt
Logan and spitting on it for the ribbon cutting ceremony???
What a load of shit....
If the Liberals get voted in again , it will just go to show how
stupid and how short a memeory that the labm voters here
are...sigh....
Spiff
Tim Thomson
I will lose it......
One In A Million wrote:
>
> It was announced today that Canada's highest peak Mt.Logan was re-named
> Mount Trudeau. Now why it had to be Canada's Highest Mt. instead of an
> obscure mountain i don't understand.
> And of course Chretien had to get in on this today too. He stated that at
> onetime him & pierre were going climb from the bottom to top. Would
> somebody please catch this dillusional idiot put him in a rubber room
> before he hurts himself physically.
> Back to the honourary mountain naming,
> perhaps it's to signify the highest amount of debt for canada started by
> P.E.T. and it symbolizes his arrogance . Only in Canada you say .
> Pity,pity,pity .
Tim Thomson
HG wrote:
>
> One In A Million <Spamp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:YeUC5.2367$Tf.5...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
> These anti-Trudeau types are really having a hard time with this. Trudeau
> was voted top Canadian newsmaker of the century in 1999. Polls show that if
> he were running today, he would be prime minister. Canadians like Trudeau -
> deal with it.
HG wrote:
>
> One In A Million <Spamp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:YeUC5.2367$Tf.5...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
> These anti-Trudeau types are really having a hard time with this. Trudeau
> was voted top Canadian newsmaker of the century in 1999. Polls show that if
> he were running today, he would be prime minister. Canadians like Trudeau -
> deal with it.
Tim Thomson
Lyle Gardiner wrote:
>
> The mountain is part of a national park that P.E.T. dedicated while he was
> PM.
John Lauzon
"Paige Smyth" <tlc...@rapidnet.net> wrote:
> "Trikky" <trikky...@canada.com> wrote in message
> news:B6019C25.2BD6%trikky...@canada.com...
> > G'day, all! In a recent article, One In A Million
> (Spamp...@hotmail.com)
> > said:
> >
> > > Mount Trudeau. Now why it had to be Canada's Highest Mt. instead of an
> > > obscure mountain i don't understand.
> > problem, but the actual name that is being reported.
> > Mount Pierre Elliot Trudeau. What a stupid name. Mount Trudeau would
> have
> > had the same effect...and not sounded so daft.
> > Trikky T; Vancouver, B.C. Canada
> > Remove UPPERCASE letters from Email address to reply.
> >
> as a result of Yukon land claim settlements, the government does not havethe
> authority to assign place names without the approval of the aboriginals.
Well we can think how lucky the aboriginals are who live in the area of mount
Trudeau when they have to take a leak.
spam...@my-deja.com
...to hell with Trudeau!
Mt. Logan was named after one of Canada's greatest scientists/explorers.
Why should this great honour be stolen by fans of P.E.Trudeau (PET)?
Logan struggled long and hard for this great honour and he should be
able to keep it.
It was PET who gave the "finger" to the west. And wasn't it PET who
got the ball rolling on the huge national debt that we are all paying
for? Lord knows the titanic pension PET has recieved from the Canadian
tax payers, the working poor, should be ample reward for his so-called
"great contribution to Canada". Now, we have to be stuck with his
namesake on our beloved Mt. Logan?!
Excuse my Quebec, but fuk dat!
I will always refer to Mt. Logan as Mt. Logan and *NOT* Mt. Trudeau!
Signed, an angry,
Pam - grrrrrr...
In article <YeUC5.2367$Tf.5...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>,
"One In A Million" <Spamp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It was announced today that Canada's highest peak Mt.Logan was re-
named
> Mount Trudeau. Now why it had to be Canada's Highest Mt. instead of an
> obscure mountain i don't understand.
> And of course Chretien had to get in on this today too. He stated
that at
> onetime him & pierre were going climb from the bottom to top. Would
> somebody please catch this dillusional idiot put him in a rubber room
> before he hurts himself physically.
> Back to the honourary mountain naming,
> perhaps it's to signify the highest amount of debt for canada started
by
> P.E.T. and it symbolizes his arrogance . Only in Canada you say .
> Pity,pity,pity .
>
> --
> $$$$$$Denni$
>
> Spellcheck & Grammatical errors !
> I don't have time to use Spellcheck
> or correct grammatical errors .
> I'm doing Brain surgery right now.
>
>
Tman
"John Lauzon" <dom...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8rjgn3$bqg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Paige Smyth
and obviously mistakenly assumed that a logical argument based on actual
facts had more credibility than one based on imaginary facts.
--
These comments are meant to offend everyone equally. If, for some reason
you are not offended, please write me with a description of yourself
including your name, race, weight, religious views, political party, strong
opinions, physical disabilities and anything else that you are touchy about,
and I will try to offend you in a future comment. Complaints should be
emailed to: bit...@likeiactuallycare.com
"One In A Million" <mil...@sprint.ca> wrote in message
news:yC8D5.2663$Tf.5...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
> We're now watching for your mistakes, so we can say sarcastic things about
> you too .
>
> --
> $$$$$$Denni$
>
> Spellcheck & Grammatical errors !
> I don't have time to use Spellcheck
> or correct grammatical errors .
> I'm doing Brain surgery right now.
John Savard
<green_...@hotmail.com> wrote, in part:
>"One In A Million" wrote in message...
>> That's the liberal way, not giving a damn what
>> anyone else thinks .
>And yet, the stupid voting public will re-elect those retards come the next
>federal election. Why should the liberals care about the public? They know
>the public is too ignorant to care for themselves.
Well, right now, what choices do they have?
Joe Clark's Tories: a vote for them is likely to be wasted.
The Bloc Quebecois: they'll pick up a few votes, of course.
Stockwell Day's Canadian Alliance: Yay! They dropped the flat tax
nonsense. But they're still a little too conservative for some; and
the East is afraid the game of robbing the West may be over.
It is a terrible pity we didn't deflect the horror when we had the
chance by electing Stanfield in 1972 - ideally, with a majority
government. But Quebec went for Trudeau, because he was felt to be in
their interest; and today, the half of Quebec that doesn't go BQ, plus
the Toronto area of Ontario find Jean Chretien to be in their interest
compared to anything else out there.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
Darin
Trudeau was no hero, he was just another self serving over
paid crooked politician.
--
I would like to see things from your perspective, but I
can't shove my head that far up my ass.
spam...@my-deja.com wrote in message
<8rji2q$cq4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Green Octopus
"John Savard" wrote in message...
> Well, right now, what choices do they have?
>
> Joe Clark's Tories: a vote for them is likely to
> be wasted. The Bloc Quebecois: they'll pick up
> a few votes, of course. Stockwell Day's Canadian
> Alliance: Yay! They dropped the flat tax nonsense.
> But they're still a little too conservative for some;
> and the East is afraid the game of robbing the
> West may be over.
>
> It is a terrible pity we didn't deflect the horror
> when we had the chance by electing Stanfield
> in 1972 - ideally, with a majority government.
> But Quebec went for Trudeau, because he was
> felt to be in their interest; and today, the half
> of Quebec that doesn't go BQ, plus the Toronto
> area of Ontario find Jean Chretien to be in their
> interest compared to anything else out there.
I'll agree with you there are no alternatives although considering what is
available, I'm definitely leaning towards Stockwell Day. The problem is
Canadians' apathy. The system relies on this. It's flawed and it sucks!
BIG TIME!!! It has never been a democracy. This country requires an
overhaul. Where is Oliver Cromwell?
Uzi
Even if there was an Oliver Cromwell around, who would follow him?
Certainly not the apathetic Canadians you mentioned. The reason that
Canadians vote the way they do is not so much out of apathy, but out
of fear. They are so scared of loosing what little they have left
after the government takes its tribute that it is better "the devil
you know to the one you don't", or so the saying goes. And they have
good reason to. Each government since Truedoh got in has been worse
than the last (I can't speak for the ones before Mr. T as I wasn't old
enough to care). And it hasn't mattered if it was a conservative or
liberal government. They were all bad. I prefer to live dangerously
and will vote CA as I do know the devil Cretin well enough to say that
we couldn't go much lower than where we are right now. Of course, the
typical apathetic Canadian will keep his head stuck in the sand, only
venturing out to buy $20 in lottery tickets each week. Hoping to win a
nest egg so that he won't have to live in a flop house and eat dog
food when he grows older.
tomax7
<tlc...@rapidnet.net> wrote:
>Gez, I'm so sorry Denni$. I had accidently reverted to my pre usenet days
>and obviously mistakenly assumed that a logical argument based on actual
>facts had more credibility than one based on imaginary facts.
>
Ouch!
One In A Million
obviously one of those 7/24/365 P.M.S. chicks that's thinks she is smart.
We'll just keep an eye on her and when she makes a mistake ,and of course
she will , i'll point out how scattered her brain is and repeat her little
quote or something better.
$$$$$$Denni$
Spellcheck & Grammatical errors !
I don't have time to use Spellcheck
or correct grammatical errors .
I'm doing Brain surgery right now.
"tomax7" <tom...@hhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:39df4118...@news.cadvision.com...
Green Octopus
"Uzi" wrote in message...
> Even if there was an Oliver Cromwell around,
> who would follow him? Certainly not the apathetic
> Canadians you mentioned. The reason that
> Canadians vote the way they do is not so much
> out of apathy, but out of fear. They are so scared
> of loosing what little they have left after the
> government takes its tribute that it is better "the
> devil you know to the one you don't", or so the
> saying goes. And they have good reason to. Each
> government since Truedoh got in has been worse
> than the last (I can't speak for the ones before
> Mr. T as I wasn't old enough to care). And it hasn't
> mattered if it was a conservative or liberal
> government. They were all bad. I prefer to live
> dangerously and will vote CA as I do know the
> devil Cretin well enough to say that we couldn't
> go much lower than where we are right now. Of
> course, the typical apathetic Canadian will keep
> his head stuck in the sand, only venturing out to
> buy $20 in lottery tickets each week. Hoping to
> win a nest egg so that he won't have to live in
> a flop house and eat dog food when he grows older.
Utter rubbish! The reason no one would follow an Oliver Cromwell is because
Canadians are such notorious pussies they can't stand the heat of the
spotlight when it begins to shine on them. All Canadians are waiting for
someone else to begin the movement and take all the criticism. When there's
a big enough following then maybe the nadless wonder majority of this
country will step up and be counted. Seeing as everyone is waiting for the
next guy, nothing will ever happen. And by the way, any dumbfuck winning
the lottery in this country who chooses to remain here is a complete fucking
idiot!
Tim Thomson
Dan Cohen
(and other media) forgot a couple of things:
- do we have a central authority for naming of geographic places?
- do we have rules for naming a place?
- do we have rules for changing the name, later?
- who may have input into the decision?
But even more important:
- who decided to name any place after Pierre?
- who decided to name a mountain?
- who decided to throw away Logan's name?
And even more important than that:
- what really was the original name of Mt. Logan?
------oOo------
I tried an Internet search for authorities and rules, and found:
http://www.alpineclubofcanada.ca/
The Alpine Club of Canada,
has a News & Events page, but I didn't find any announcements.
http://geonames.nrcan.gc.ca/
The Geographic Names of Canada,
Natural Resources Canada,
offers a lot of resources, but I didn't find any naming guidelines.
------oOo------
Recently, Chinaman's Peak was renamed to Ha Ling Mountain. The Chinese
community had already asked the Geographic Names to do so. The Alpine
Club told us that mountains are usually named by the first person to
climb it. It they don't, it's usually named after the climber himself.
In Logan's case, Chretien informs us the he and Trudeau "thought about"
climbing Logan, but did not.
------oOo------
Can any of you readers add to this?
-- Dan Cohen in Calgary
Dan Cohen
>
> Supplementary Q:
> Does anyone at all know or care who was Mt. Logan named after?
Yes I care. Place names are always important, and so is the history that
made it happen. Especially a whopper of an adventure like Logan, its
neighbours, and the glaciers that grace them.
>Will anyone care in 20 years who was Mt. Trudeau named after?
Yes I care. Trudeau was a great man in Canadian history, and his
influence on us, our parents, and our grandchildren should not be
trivialized.
My problem is, "Who wanted the name change, and how did they do it?"
- did anybody here want to change Mt. Logan's name?
- did anybody here want to name a geographic feature after Trudeau?
- did anybody here want to name an already-famous mountain after
Trudeau?
- did anybody here actually suggest dumping "Logan" and inserting
"Trudeau?
-- Dan Cohen in Calgary
(Who once helped to change a place-name.)
Lyle Gardiner
be much more appropate.
Lyle
Karl Pollak <ka...@dontspam.org> wrote in message
news:39e1c40c....@news.bluecrow.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
> spam...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >I will always refer to Mt. Logan as Mt. Logan and *NOT* Mt. Trudeau!
> >
> >Signed, an angry,
> >Pam - grrrrrr...
>
> Just a curious question, Spammie:
> When was the last time you had referred to Mt. Logan before last week?
>
> Supplementary Q:
> Does anyone at all know or care who was Mt. Logan named after? Will anyone
> care in 20 years who was Mt. Trudeau named after?
>
> --
> Greetings from Lotusland
Kelly Bert Manning
> Yes I care. Trudeau was a great man in Canadian history, and his
> influence on us, our parents, and our grandchildren should not be
> trivialized.
>
The same could be said for Hitler and Stalin.
I object to it because Trudeau was a lying creep who was so far out
beyond the limit that his own party had to give him a reality check on
his plan to hang in for "a year less a day" after his maximum 5 year
mandate expired. Remember the big controversy about that? People were
hoping that the Governor General would have the guts to pull his plug
if he tried that one. The GG made no public comment at the time, but
there was another flap later when someone got him to "discuss that
in the abstract".
Good riddance to Peter Waterhole.
lyle
http://www.canadianculture.com/savemtlogan/index.htm
One In A Million wrote:
> It was announced today that Canada's highest peak Mt.Logan was re-named
> Mount Trudeau. Now why it had to be Canada's Highest Mt. instead of an
> obscure mountain i don't understand.
> And of course Chretien had to get in on this today too. He stated that at
> onetime him & pierre were going climb from the bottom to top. Would
> somebody please catch this dillusional idiot put him in a rubber room
> before he hurts himself physically.
> Back to the honourary mountain naming,
> perhaps it's to signify the highest amount of debt for canada started by
> P.E.T. and it symbolizes his arrogance . Only in Canada you say .
> Pity,pity,pity .
>
> --
it...@here.com
should be safeguards against this king of thing.
I like Chretian until this ill thought out descion.
And the son, is a jerk, for liking this descion.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:08:40 GMT, "Lyle Gardiner" <lgar...@vcn.bc.ca>
wrote:
it...@here.com
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:08:40 GMT, "Lyle Gardiner" <lgar...@vcn.bc.ca>
wrote:
>I agree, I think there are much better ways. A scholarship in his name would
it...@here.com
wrote:
>I agree, I think there are much better ways. A scholarship in his name would
it...@here.com
be paid for be all. Not by a scaled tax on auto owners linked to the
weight of the vehicle.
Proposal if for :
The smallest cars to pay $40 a year
The minivans and suv's to pay $120
The midsized (Corolla) to pay $80
Thus a family, that may be just scraping by, that needs a minivan to
deliver the children to school (there are no school buses for 5 km
radius. ) and to soccer games, gets hit the hardest.
it...@here.com
be paid for be all. Not by a scaled tax on auto owners linked to the
weight of the vehicle.
Proposal if for :
The smallest cars to pay $40 a year, who can fit the football gear,
and two kids into one of these.?
it...@here.com
be paid for be all. Not by a scaled tax on auto owners linked to the
weight of the vehicle.
Proposal if for :
The smallest cars to pay $40 a year
The minivans and suv's to pay $120
The midsized (Corolla) to pay $80
Thus a family, that may be just scraping by, that needs a minivan to
deliver the children to school (there are no school buses for 5 km
radius. ) and to soccer games, gets hit the hardest.
The well to do families who drive the large displacement land ships
will not be affected, as the money is insignificant to them.
The people who use the transit exclusively , also will not be
affected as they do not have to pay the tax. This is where the tax is
unfair. Were it to be spread across the population and added to the
income tax then the higher taxed people would pay the fair share and
the lower income with families would pay their fair share.
Dan Cohen
>
> If you want to save Mount Logan
> http://www.canadianculture.com/savemtlogan/index.htm
>
Thanks for the link, lyle. I just submitted my comments. And the site
has better Logan Links than I found.
it...@here.com
Trikky
> Public transit is a benefit to all citizens of the country, and should
> be paid for be all. Not by a scaled tax on auto owners linked to the
> weight of the vehicle.
>
> Proposal if for :
>
> The smallest cars to pay $40 a year
>
> The minivans and suv's to pay $120
>
> The midsized (Corolla) to pay $80
>
> Thus a family, that may be just scraping by, that needs a minivan to
> deliver the children to school (there are no school buses for 5 km
> radius. ) and to soccer games, gets hit the hardest.
>
> The well to do families who drive the large displacement land ships
> will not be affected, as the money is insignificant to them.
Agreed. Furthermore, since minivans usually have multiple occupants,
they should get a cut rate because of their multiple passenger usage.
B
<it...@here.com> wrote in message
news:a2qcusk5j7gr8s8i8...@4ax.com...
> Public transit is a benefit to all citizens of the country, and should
> be paid for be all. Not by a scaled tax on auto owners linked to the
> weight of the vehicle.
>
> Proposal if for :
>
> The smallest cars to pay $40 a year
>
> The minivans and suv's to pay $120
>
> The midsized (Corolla) to pay $80
>
> Thus a family, that may be just scraping by, that needs a minivan to
> deliver the children to school (there are no school buses for 5 km
> radius. ) and to soccer games, gets hit the hardest.
If a family is just scraping by, how can they afford a minivan? If they can
afford a minivan then they can afford the $120.
B
> > be paid for be all. Not by a scaled tax on auto owners linked to the
> > weight of the vehicle.
> >
> > Proposal if for :
> >
> > The smallest cars to pay $40 a year
> >
> > The minivans and suv's to pay $120
> >
> > The midsized (Corolla) to pay $80
> >
> > Thus a family, that may be just scraping by, that needs a minivan to
> > deliver the children to school (there are no school buses for 5 km
> > radius. ) and to soccer games, gets hit the hardest.
> >
> > will not be affected, as the money is insignificant to them.
>
> Agreed. Furthermore, since minivans usually have multiple occupants,
> they should get a cut rate because of their multiple passenger usage.
>
>
> --
> Trikky T; Vancouver, B.C. Canada
> Remove UPPERCASE letters from Email address to reply.
>
Minivans do not usually have multiple occupants. Check out the HOV lanes on
highway 1. Most minivans do not use them because they only have one
occupant.
J. Chapman
trikky...@canada.com says...
> G'day, all! In a recent article, it...@here.com (it...@here.com) said:
>
> > Public transit is a benefit to all citizens of the country, and should
> > be paid for be all. Not by a scaled tax on auto owners linked to the
> > weight of the vehicle.
> >
> > Proposal if for :
> >
> > The smallest cars to pay $40 a year
> >
> > The minivans and suv's to pay $120
> >
> > The midsized (Corolla) to pay $80
> >
> > Thus a family, that may be just scraping by, that needs a minivan to
> > deliver the children to school (there are no school buses for 5 km
> > radius. ) and to soccer games, gets hit the hardest.
> >
> > The well to do families who drive the large displacement land ships
> > will not be affected, as the money is insignificant to them.
>
> Agreed. Furthermore, since minivans usually have multiple occupants,
> they should get a cut rate because of their multiple passenger usage.
Let us never lose the opportunity to take potshots at the "wealthy"
among us.
In contrast to that the original poster is saying I can look back
and find a clear inverse correlation between my income and the size
of the vehicle I drove and the amount of pollution it emitted.
If this is truly a pollution tax then the 20yr old clunkers should be
hit the hardest.
And maybe somebody could drag the government into the 20th century
and explain computers to them. If they are going to charge for pollution
then the charge ought to be proportional to something on the order
of: miles driven * pollutants emitted according to manufacturer.
It's not very hard to do and certainly fairer than dinging the big SUV
driven 6 thousand miles a year more than the little sports car
driven 20 thousand miles per year.
--
If I don't respond to a post it may mean that I haven't seen it,
that I don't think it merits a response or that the poster is in
my killfile. In any case silence should not be taken as assent.
Carter Lee
> > be paid for be all. Not by a scaled tax on auto owners linked to the
> > weight of the vehicle.
> >
> > Proposal if for :
> >
> > The smallest cars to pay $40 a year
> >
> > The minivans and suv's to pay $120
> >
> > The midsized (Corolla) to pay $80
> >
> > Thus a family, that may be just scraping by, that needs a minivan to
> > deliver the children to school (there are no school buses for 5 km
> > radius. ) and to soccer games, gets hit the hardest.
>
> afford a minivan then they can afford the $120.
Cut out the snobbery and read posts before you reply. The scenario
stated was that they need the minivan to get the kids to school because
there is no school bus. Because they have bought what they need they
are just scraping by and cannot afford an extra $120 a year to support
what they cannot take advantage of.
Carter
Carter Lee
>
> "Trikky" <trikky...@canada.com> wrote in message
> news:B60C1D49.3AE1%trikky...@canada.com...
> > > be paid for be all. Not by a scaled tax on auto owners linked to the
> > > weight of the vehicle.
> > >
> > > Proposal if for :
> > >
> > > The smallest cars to pay $40 a year
> > >
> > > The minivans and suv's to pay $120
> > >
> > > The midsized (Corolla) to pay $80
> > >
> > > Thus a family, that may be just scraping by, that needs a minivan to
> > > deliver the children to school (there are no school buses for 5 km
> > > radius. ) and to soccer games, gets hit the hardest.
> > >
> > > will not be affected, as the money is insignificant to them.
> >
> > Agreed. Furthermore, since minivans usually have multiple occupants,
> > they should get a cut rate because of their multiple passenger usage.
> >
> >
> > Trikky T; Vancouver, B.C. Canada
> > Remove UPPERCASE letters from Email address to reply.
> >
>
> Minivans do not usually have multiple occupants. Check out the HOV lanes on
> highway 1. Most minivans do not use them because they only have one
> occupant.
Have you got some figures to support your use of "usually" and "most"?
Do you know this from some survey or is it just your casual observation?
Carter
You Here
>
>
>
>Thus a family, that may be just scraping by, that needs a minivan to
>deliver the children to school (there are no school buses for 5 km
>radius. ) and to soccer games, gets hit the hardest.
>
dork, if the family can barely scrape by the spoiled brats can WALK TO
SCHOOL and play soccer in a VACANT LOT!
>The well to do families who drive the large displacement land ships
>will not be affected, as the money is insignificant to them.
>
same goes for the minivan families who are trying to keep up with the joneses
and are hostages to their spoiled brat children who insist on being taxi'd
everywhere. sorry, no sympathy for the yuppies or the yuppie wannabes.
>
>
>
>The people who use the transit exclusively , also will not be
>affected as they do not have to pay the tax. This is where the tax is
>unfair.
no thats where the tax is fair, because the whole point of the tax is to get
people to use public transit to cut down on pollution.
>Were it to be spread across the population and added to the
>income tax then the higher taxed people would pay the fair share and
>the lower income with families would pay their fair share.
wrong, whiner!
You Here
>
>I
>Let us never lose the opportunity to take potshots at the "wealthy"
>among us.
>
>
>hit the hardest.
>
that truely would be a war against the poor. I think those who are in a
position to absorb the costs of the levy should absorb it. We don't have a
flat income tax, people who earn more pay more. Thats the way it works, or at
least is supposed to work. Unfortunately wealthy people also form policy and
try to subvert progressive taxation.
>And maybe somebody could drag the government into the 20th century
>and explain computers to them. If they are going to charge for pollution
>then the charge ought to be proportional to something on the order
>of: miles driven * pollutants emitted according to manufacturer.
>
thats a pretty good idea, but I doubt the manufacturers would ever let it
happen that way. the emissions reports on different vehicles are open to
interpretation which means that any restrictions the govt. would put on brands
would open them up for one hefty lawsuit.
>It's not very hard to do and certainly fairer than dinging the big SUV
>driven 6 thousand miles a year more than the little sports car
>driven 20 thousand miles per year.
Its a nice idea to think that somebody has an SUV in their garage that only
gets driven to camping destinations for 2 months during the summer, but one
look at the pathetic state of the traffic on the roads in vancouver
demonstrates that SUVs are being driven all the time by most owners of SUVs.
Follow one out of a Safeway parkinglot for a few blocks to its home, and see
for yourself what SUVs are really used for - extremely short journeys in the
city.
You Here
>
>> Minivans do not usually have multiple occupants. Check out the HOV lanes on
>> highway 1. Most minivans do not use them because they only have one
>> occupant.
>
>Have you got some figures to support your use of "usually" and "most"?
>Do you know this from some survey or is it just your casual observation?
>
Figures are skewed anyway, but lets use some common sense for a change. most
compact cars also seat 4 people! not too many minivans have more then 4 people
in them unless its a school field trip or a seniors excursion to a casino on an
indian reserve across the boarder. Most families do not consist of more than 4
children, in fact the amount of kids families are having in canada is
constantly going down.
Basically, minivans and SUVs exist as status symbols and penile extensions.
Sportscars do too, but they don't project that patriarchial 'man ruling over
the kingdom of his home and family' image that so many boomers are striving for
these days. Most people grow out of their sports car by the time they hit 25
or 30. But boomers happily tool around in their SUVs and minivans and show no
signs of being embarassed about it for decades to come! Thats why they're
being targeted. Its a huge demographic and so many of them insist on driving
SUVs and Minivans. Well its time the boomers stopped mortgaging everyone elses
future for their big suburban garden party.
You Here
>
>
>Cut out the snobbery and read posts before you reply. The scenario
>stated was that they need the minivan to get the kids to school because
>there is no school bus.
now thats rich! Just down in my neighborhood on oct. 3rd the local elementary
school hosted 'WALK TO SCHOOL DAY'! It was actually a big deal, because
apparently NOBODY walks to school anymore. I'm only 30 years old, 20 years ago
I walked to school every day. Everyone did! It was only a few blocks to your
elementary school no matter where you lived.
Now there is an actual proposal in vancouver to change around some of the
regions that feed into certain elementary schools, the reasoning being that
since parents are ALREADY driving their kids to school everyday, it is not
necessary to have schools within walking distance! So now parents are
complaining about having to drive their kids an extra 10 blocks to school, but
they asked for it in the first place by allowing their whiney urchins to force
them to drive 5 blocks to the school in their district.
>Because they have bought what they need they
>are just scraping by and cannot afford an extra $120 a year to support
>what they cannot take advantage of.
>
why do they need a minivan? how many kids do they have? compact cars have
seatbelts for 4-5 people. are these catholics who don't use condoms and need
to load 40 kids into a bus? What the hell are you talking about 'only scraping
by and buying what they need'. no family NEEDS a minivan. Do you seriously
believe they do? Vans used to be used only by people in the trucking business.
Hell maybe I'm wrong, all the obese kids in north america probably do need to
be forklifted into a minivan in order to get to school.
it...@here.com
One In A Million
--
Denni$
Another Day , Another Dollar,
Million Day , Million Dollar !
"LA_Brand" <hamme...@home.com> wrote in message
news:aRNF5.10430$76.2...@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com...
> its now called the PET rock.....
>
>
> Dan Cohen <danc...@spots.ab.ca> wrote in message
> news:39E6A0AE...@spots.ab.ca...
Carter Lee
Yawn, ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
Carter
LA_Brand
You Here
>
>
>Yawn, ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
>
>Carter
and you actually sign your name to statements like these.. har har
your foggy brain is tired, carter, go back to sleep!
patrok
it...@here.com wrote:
> Public transit is a benefit to all citizens of the country, and should
> be paid for be all. Not by a scaled tax on auto owners linked to the
> weight of the vehicle.
>
maintenance.
It is wellknow the heavier the vehicule is, the more it degrade the
road!
Actually I guess BC transit buses will have to pay the levy too, $190
like every commercial vehicle.
>
> Proposal if for :
>
> The smallest cars to pay $40 a year, who can fit the football gear,
> and two kids into one of these.?
>
> The minivans and suv's to pay $120
>
> The midsized (Corolla) to pay $80
>
I strongly support the fact motorist pay for what they use.
Sure the best system is toll road and bridge, but Translink
makes with what it can deal.
I don't have car, and I pay for
transform the Stanley causeway and bridge toward an in city Highway...
I don't need that and that is not a benefit for the BC economy but just
improve comfort of some commuters whose have transit alternative during
some commuter don't have car alternative!
For the while, I ride by bus!
I make traffic jam less the hell for you and I pay for that!!!
Don’t thank me, you are welcome since all the pleasure is for me.
> Thus a family, that may be just scraping by, that needs a minivan to
> deliver the children to school (there are no school buses for 5 km
> radius. ) and to soccer games, gets hit the hardest.
>
If the family is unhappy with its place to far away from commodity,
The family can move really closer from school and soccer field
(assuming 5km is far away: 10mn biking! Like that you arrive in good
shape at the soccer field !).
I could provide lot of cheap address in one block from commodity with a
good transit system for get away without car!
Money saving: $10000 a year. With that, all the family can spend
a 2-3 vacation week in Switzerland, just for see how tax are low in
Vancouver, and life very peace full with soft and frequent train
bringing you everywhere in the vicinity!
And remember you that: transit system need to be use for justified the
improving.
So start to make a little bit effort. If every one act like that,
things will improve a lot, starting to make a more sustainable transit
system without expand a multi-billion road network and all its drawback.
Cheers,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Darin
this world if they can't afford to raise them?
I am sick and tired of hearing about people who can't make
ends meet with their 3 or 4 kids, and yet all they do is
bitch and want more hand outs. GET IT THROUGH YOUR FUCKING
HEADS, BY SHITTING OUT KIDS YOU ARE NOT DOING ANYONE A FAVOR
AND WE OWE YOU NOTHING FOR YOUR EFFORTS, AND IT IS NOT OUR
RESPONSIBILITY WHEN YOU CAN'T AFFORD TO RAISE AND EDUCATE
THESE KIDS.
Sig. John Q. Public ( AKA
Tax payer ).
--
I would like to see things from your perspective, but I
can't shove my head that far up my ass.
>> Thus a family, that may be just scraping by, that needs
a minivan to
>> deliver the children to school (there are no school buses
for 5 km
>> radius. ) and to soccer games, gets hit the hardest.
>
Tyler Durden
>In article <MPG.14510d8a1c5b7dea989d3a@news>, nos...@spamnot.com says...
>>
>>I
>>And maybe somebody could drag the government into the 20th century
>>and explain computers to them. If they are going to charge for pollution
>>then the charge ought to be proportional to something on the order
>>of: miles driven * pollutants emitted according to manufacturer.
>>
>
>thats a pretty good idea, but I doubt the manufacturers would ever let it
>happen that way. the emissions reports on different vehicles are open to
>interpretation which means that any restrictions the govt. would put on brands
>would open them up for one hefty lawsuit.
Actually, It's not hard at all. Base it on ACTUAL emissions from Aircare tests
rather than manufacturers' claimed fuel consumption ratings. Since Aircare also
tracks your odometer reading, it is possible to estimate the yearly output of
emissions for each car. Take this amount and multiply it by whatever factor is
necessary to collect the desired amount of tax. This is probably the closest
you can get to penalizing people for what they are actually emitting.
As for whether you can trust Aircare readings, that's up for debate.
>>It's not very hard to do and certainly fairer than dinging the big SUV
>>driven 6 thousand miles a year more than the little sports car
>>driven 20 thousand miles per year.
>
>Its a nice idea to think that somebody has an SUV in their garage that only
>gets driven to camping destinations for 2 months during the summer, but one
>look at the pathetic state of the traffic on the roads in vancouver
>demonstrates that SUVs are being driven all the time by most owners of SUVs.
>Follow one out of a Safeway parkinglot for a few blocks to its home, and see
>for yourself what SUVs are really used for - extremely short journeys in the
>city.
In the case of SUV's, just consider this a tax on the vain and stupid.
Carter Lee
You obviously didn't get my message. BS tends to make me sleepy.
Carter
Anthony Buckland
>
> Public transit is a benefit to all citizens of the country, and should
> be paid for be all. Not by a scaled tax on auto owners linked to the
> weight of the vehicle.
A benefit that is paid for by those receiving it is no
longer a benefit, it's a service. A benefit is
something granted to some at the expense of others or
of all.
That said, I agree that weight is a crummy criterion.
So is any other property of the vehicle, even its
rate of pollution emission. What matters is not how
much pollution per km is emitted, but how much
pollution total is emitted. And how do you measure
that? Well, given the rather sweeping simplification
of assuming that all vehicles that pass Air Care
convert the same proportion of gas to pollutants, you
can measure it by gas consumption. The obvious way
of charging for that would be another, municipal,
tax on gas; throughout the region on an equal basis,
of course.
Anyone for dollar/L gas?
You Here
>
>
>Actually, It's not hard at all. Base it on ACTUAL emissions from Aircare tests
>rather than manufacturers' claimed fuel consumption ratings. Since Aircare
also
>tracks your odometer reading, it is possible to estimate the yearly output of
>emissions for each car.
in my opinion aircare is nothing more than a make-work program. I do not trust
any of the readings from their equipment.
weight makes the most sense, I do not believe that any vehicles are
significantly cleaner than they were 20 years ago other than the fact that we
dont use leaded gas anymore.
You Here
>
well then quit putting yourself to sleep, wanker!
You Here
>
>
> That said, I agree that weight is a crummy criterion.
> So is any other property of the vehicle, even its
> rate of pollution emission. What matters is not how
> much pollution per km is emitted, but how much
> pollution total is emitted. And how do you measure
> that? Well, given the rather sweeping simplification
> of assuming that all vehicles that pass Air Care
> convert the same proportion of gas to pollutants, you
> can measure it by gas consumption. The obvious way
> of charging for that would be another, municipal,
> tax on gas; throughout the region on an equal basis,
> of course.
>
Jacking up the gas would just cause people to tool on over the boarder to gas
up in the states. Sorry charlie, weight levy is the only thing that can't be
subverted. BCTV actually had the nerve to suggest that it should be done by
weight and vehicle usage as declared on insurance, but we known that most
people have their SUVs insured as recreational purposes only even though they
drive them constantly. Using weight restriction alone simply makes it
impossible for anyone to weasle out of the fee while the rest of us do-gooders
take up the slack.
Carter Lee
> in my opinion aircare is nothing more than a make-work program.
Mind telling us what you base that opinion on?
I do not trust
> any of the readings from their equipment.
Why?
>
> weight makes the most sense, I do not believe that any vehicles are
> significantly cleaner than they were 20 years ago other than the fact that we
> dont use leaded gas anymore.
What is the basis for that belief?
Carter
it...@here.com
On Sat, 14 Oct 2000 03:12:33 GMT, "Darin" <ko...@home.comNOSPAM>
wrote:
it...@here.com
Ford Crew Cab 7600 liter long boxx truck. This is insane . Yet the
yoyo 's that live on the skytrain track don't pay a cent. Cause they
are riding for free the dam train in the sky, on my blood earned
money.
Doesn't the transit levelsy baldy with white hair think that they
should pay a little.
What kind of logic is that!
Why not just outlaw all auto sales, and all autos, wouldn't that stop
pollution?
And what of the billions of dollars already collected on gasoline and
other fuel sales, where the hell is that going??
Certainly not for roads,, just look at the state of disrepair, with
potholes on the Pacific hwy, and hugh semi 20 wheeler, turning on and
off the hwy , yet with no shoulders, or turning lane, many end up in
the 10 meter deep ditches,
and god forbid the car that wonders off the pavement here , the pot
holed shoulder aught to break a spring or wheel mount or two.
it...@here.com
it...@here.com
On Sat, 14 Oct 2000 21:24:46 GMT, sp...@spammy.spam.spam (You Here)
wrote:
Tyler Durden
>You Here wrote:
>
>> in my opinion aircare is nothing more than a make-work program.
>
>Mind telling us what you base that opinion on?
>
> I do not trust
>> any of the readings from their equipment.
>
>Why?
If you've ever had wildly varying Aircare readings for the same car without
doing anything to the car you will understand. How the staff performs the test
(ie how close they confirm to standard procedures) has a huge impact on the
results. From my experience, there is too much deviation in procedure by staff
to make the results reliable.
You know it's a scam when they put the mirror under the wrong side of the car to
check for the presence of a catalytic convertor. You know they're acting when
they can pretend to assess the condition of your vacuum and EGR system by a 5
second peek under the hood. You know the sincerity of the program is bogus if
they're checking the air-tightness of your fuel-cap when, unlike the US with
their suction shrouds on the fuel nozzles at gas stations, we in Canada are
letting tons of fuel vapor into the atmosphere whenever we fuel up.
>> weight makes the most sense, I do not believe that any vehicles are
>> significantly cleaner than they were 20 years ago other than the fact that we
>> dont use leaded gas anymore.
>
>What is the basis for that belief?
There is no basis for this belief. Search the websites of the US or Canadian
environmental agencies and you will see this belief is false.
>
>Carter
You Here
>
>You Here wrote:
>
>> in my opinion aircare is nothing more than a make-work program.
>
>Mind telling us what you base that opinion on?
>
"ZZZZZZZZZ YAWN" - Carter Lee
> I do not trust
>> any of the readings from their equipment.
>
>Why?
"ZZZZZZZZZ YAWN" - Carter Lee
>>
>> weight makes the most sense, I do not believe that any vehicles are
>> significantly cleaner than they were 20 years ago other than the fact that
we
>> dont use leaded gas anymore.
>
>What is the basis for that belief?
"ZZZZZZZZZ YAWN" - Carter Lee
You Here
>
>
>You know it's a scam when they put the mirror under the wrong side of the car
to
>check for the presence of a catalytic convertor.
The catalytic converter is the ONLY thing that has been added to cars in the
past 100 years that makes any attempt to cut down emissions. And it works for
about 3 minutes on every new car until the sulfur that is added to all gas
coats the rods that are supposed to filter the pollution. All catalytic
converters do is burn off a little sulfer everyone once in a while to make a
gross farty smell.
Carter Lee
>
> Carter Lee <cr...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >You Here wrote:
> >
> >> in my opinion aircare is nothing more than a make-work program.
> >
> >Mind telling us what you base that opinion on?
> >
> > I do not trust
> >> any of the readings from their equipment.
> >
> >Why?
>
> If you've ever had wildly varying Aircare readings for the same car without
> doing anything to the car you will understand. How the staff performs the test
> (ie how close they confirm to standard procedures) has a huge impact on the
> results. From my experience, there is too much deviation in procedure by staff
> to make the results reliable.
>
> You know it's a scam when they put the mirror under the wrong side of the car to
> check for the presence of a catalytic convertor. You know they're acting when
> they can pretend to assess the condition of your vacuum and EGR system by a 5
> second peek under the hood. You know the sincerity of the program is bogus if
> they're checking the air-tightness of your fuel-cap when, unlike the US with
> their suction shrouds on the fuel nozzles at gas stations, we in Canada are
> letting tons of fuel vapor into the atmosphere whenever we fuel up.
Thanks Tyler. Not having had my car checked in B.C. I was wondering why
someone would rate the program so low. This makes me wonder, if the
program is so bad why is it still in existence?
>
>
> >> weight makes the most sense, I do not believe that any vehicles are
> >> significantly cleaner than they were 20 years ago other than the fact that we
> >> dont use leaded gas anymore.
> >
> >What is the basis for that belief?
>
> There is no basis for this belief. Search the websites of the US or Canadian
> environmental agencies and you will see this belief is false.
I know that. I wanted to know why "you here" held that belief.
Carter
Carter Lee
Just as I thought, you are blowing smoke, if you had answers for my
questions you would have been only too happy to give them.
Carter
Tyler Durden
>Tyler Durden wrote:
>>
>> Carter Lee <cr...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >You Here wrote:
>> >
>> >> in my opinion aircare is nothing more than a make-work program.
>> >
>> >Mind telling us what you base that opinion on?
>> >
>> > I do not trust
>> >> any of the readings from their equipment.
>> >
>> >Why?
>>
>> If you've ever had wildly varying Aircare readings for the same car without
>> doing anything to the car you will understand. How the staff performs the test
>> (ie how close they confirm to standard procedures) has a huge impact on the
>> results. From my experience, there is too much deviation in procedure by staff
>> to make the results reliable.
>>
>> You know it's a scam when they put the mirror under the wrong side of the car to
>> check for the presence of a catalytic convertor. You know they're acting when
>> they can pretend to assess the condition of your vacuum and EGR system by a 5
>> second peek under the hood. You know the sincerity of the program is bogus if
>> they're checking the air-tightness of your fuel-cap when, unlike the US with
>> their suction shrouds on the fuel nozzles at gas stations, we in Canada are
>> letting tons of fuel vapor into the atmosphere whenever we fuel up.
>
>Thanks Tyler. Not having had my car checked in B.C. I was wondering why
>someone would rate the program so low. This makes me wonder, if the
>program is so bad why is it still in existence?
The intent is good, but the execution is severely flawed (as are most
"feel-good" gov't programs).
Aircare is a dream come true for crooked repair shops.
If your car fails, all you have to do is blow $+250 or so at a 'certified' shop,
and you get to keep on polluting for another year. Of course, the shop doesn't
have to give you $250 worth of services or parts, they just have to bill you for
the amount. A friend recently failed and had an Aircare certified shop tune-up
his car for over $250 and the second emissions test was actually worse. I read
the repair order and what they did was not worth anywhere near $250.
Nevertheless, once you spend this money, you are allowed a conditional pass,
even though you are still polluting the same or worse. How does that help the
environment?
Most repair shops are already dishonest. Aircare only gives them one more excuse
to 'print money'.
The fee for Aircare has rapidly increased over the years from $16 to $24 and
yet, the test has not really changed in duration or thoroughness. The fact that
it takes three monkeys to conduct a 10 min test on a single car points to the
fact that this is a job-creation program. Now they plan to allow newer cars to
only be tested once every two years...BUT they will pay double the fee
instead...hows that for a scam?
As a taxpayer and motorist, I'd expect the gov't to clean up their act, before
coming to me asking for more money. If they can't manage what they have now,
what makes them think they'll be able to put the levy they intend to collect
from me to good use?
Aside: it seems Aircare workers and those people that check your receipts when
you leave Costco are trained at the same school of acting.
it...@here.com
Blake McNeill
Founded and was appointed first Director of the Geological Survey of Canada.
He mapped the geology and mineral resources from Newfoundland to Manitoba,
an immense undertaking considering the lack of maps and infrastructure of
the day. For his efforts, Logan was knighted by Queen Victoria in 1856, the
first native-born Canadian to receive such an honour. In 1863, under
Logan's direction, the Survey published an impressive 983-page book on
everything known at that time about the geology and mineral wealth of
Canada.
"No man has done as much to bring Canada before the notice of the outside
world and no man is more deserving of being held in remembrance by the
people. Just as statesmen and generals have risen up at the moment of
greatest need to frame laws or fight battles for their countries, so Sir
William Logan appeared to reveal to us the hidden treasures of nature just
at a time when Canada needed to know her wealth in order to appreciate her
greatness."
That eulogy was delivered after Logan's death in 1875.
Logan's pioneering work directly and indirectly resulted in the discovery of
substantial mineral resources, which have so greatly contributed to the
wealth and standard of living that Canadians enjoy to this day. Logan chose
to live a non-controversial, modest life. In 1891, Canada's highest
mountain was named in honour of Sir William Logan by I.C. Russell, an
American surveyor. In 1998, MacLean's magazine named Sir William the
greatest Canadian scientist of all time, and one of the 10 most influential
Canadians.
end quote.
Now this would be totally unacceptable to a politician, someone who deals
with facts and the pursuit of truth (Sir William Logan) so they must change
the name to some totally unrealistic twit (P.E.T.). I can only take solace
in the memory of when some other political twit tried to rename Castle
Mountain (in Banff) to Mount Eisenhower, which thankfully died a quiet death
and Castle Mountain still remains. I know the same will happen to Mount
Logan, as no 'Mount Trudeau' sign will remain standing for more then 5
minutes, before being replaced with the correct Mount Logan sign. I had
suggested renaming Mount d'Iberville, which is the highest peak in Quebec to
Trudeau Mountain, but certainly not Logan Mount (sorry Pierre, you were not
that good).
Blake McNeill
"One In A Million" <Spamp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:YeUC5.2367$Tf.5...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
> It was announced today that Canada's highest peak Mt.Logan was re-named
> Mount Trudeau. Now why it had to be Canada's Highest Mt. instead of an
> obscure mountain i don't understand.
> And of course Chretien had to get in on this today too. He stated that at
> onetime him & pierre were going climb from the bottom to top. Would
> somebody please catch this dillusional idiot put him in a rubber room
> before he hurts himself physically.
> Back to the honourary mountain naming,
> perhaps it's to signify the highest amount of debt for canada started by
> P.E.T. and it symbolizes his arrogance . Only in Canada you say .
> Pity,pity,pity .
>
>
> --
> $$$$$$Denni$
>
> Spellcheck & Grammatical errors !
> I don't have time to use Spellcheck
> or correct grammatical errors .
> I'm doing Brain surgery right now.
>
One In A Million
Trudeau was a twit
Way to go! Blake
--
Denni$
Another Day , Another Dollar,
Million Day , Million Dollar !
"Blake McNeill" <mcne...@home.com> wrote in message
news:ITSG5.19486$76.4...@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com...
Dan Cohen
>
> Excellent Writ
> Trudeau was a twit
Some of you Calgarians have written to this topic because it's an
opportunity to bash Trudeau. Some like to praise Mr. Logan.
That's natural, we all love to do that.
But I think another important issue for today is:
- Who actually changed the name?
- What right did they have to do that?
- Were any of us Canadians asked for our opinion?
- And now that the name is "officially" changed, do we have the power
to change it back to the correct name?
cyr...@my-deja.com
many complaints. They will instead name Canada's 15th tallest peak (I
think that's what I read) around Roger's pass in the Rockies, to Mt
Trudeau.
> - And now that the name is "officially" changed, do we have the power
> to change it back to the correct name?
>
> -- Dan Cohen in Calgary
>
Kurt Sims
on this issue. Copps has come out and said that the government may not
change the name of Mount Logan after all.
The name hasn't been changed yet and now it looks like they may try to
name something else after Trudeau instead of Mount Logan. I suppose
thats one nice thing about an early election call, the liberals don't
seem to want this controversy dogging them on the campaign trail.
Kurt
In article <39EC748F...@spots.ab.ca>, Dan Cohen
<danc...@spots.ab.ca> wrote:
> One In A Million wrote:
> >
> > Excellent Writ
> > Trudeau was a twit
>
> Some of you Calgarians have written to this topic because it's an
> opportunity to bash Trudeau. Some like to praise Mr. Logan.
>
> That's natural, we all love to do that.
>
> But I think another important issue for today is:
> - Who actually changed the name?
> - What right did they have to do that?
> - Were any of us Canadians asked for our opinion?
> - And now that the name is "officially" changed, do we have the power
> to change it back to the correct name?
>
> -- Dan Cohen in Calgary
--
To reply by email please remove the two spams out of my return address.
One In A Million
--
Denni$
Another Day , Another Dollar,
Million Day , Million Dollar !
"Dan Cohen" <danc...@spots.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:39EC748F...@spots.ab.ca...
> One In A Million wrote:
> >
> > Excellent Writ
> > Trudeau was a twit
>
> Some of you Calgarians have written to this topic because it's an
> opportunity to bash Trudeau. Some like to praise Mr. Logan.
>
> That's natural, we all love to do that.
>
> But I think another important issue for today is:
> - Who actually changed the name?
$$$$ Chretien did on his own .
> - Were any of us Canadians asked for our opinion?
$$$$$ NOOOOOO !
> - And now that the name is "officially" changed, do we have the power
> to change it back to the correct name?
$$$$$ It wasn't really official.
Naming Canadian things like Lakes ,Rivers, Mountains, Etc.is done by a
special group of people abfter much though & debate .
It's not done by the WHIM of a French Canadian P.M. with an EGO .
Castle Mountain , if you didn't know was changed to MT. Eisenhower years
ago. > Then
it was eventually changed back to Castle Mountain .
Denni$
foamy
>They aren't going to be renaming Mt Logan after all. There were too
>many complaints. They will instead name Canada's 15th tallest peak (I
>think that's what I read) around Roger's pass in the Rockies, to Mt
>Trudeau.
Why are they naming anything at all in BC after him ? Is this just
another finger only bigger ?
Jim
Carter Lee
The announcement today simply said that the renaming of Mt Logan was "on
hold" until further notice because of public opposition. It said
nothing AFAIK about naming anything else after Trudeau. Personally I
think an appropriate memorial to Trudeau would be a sewage treatment
plant somewhere in Quebec.
Carter
Tim Thomson
Ken Dalla Vicenza
and over again in Barbara Streisand's to do list in the 70s.
it...@here.com wrote:
> Let them pick some unnamed mountain in Quebec and leave Logan alone.
>
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:08:40 GMT, "Lyle Gardiner" <lgar...@vcn.bc.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >I agree, I think there are much better ways. A scholarship in his name would
> >be much more appropate.
> >Lyle
> >
> >Karl Pollak <ka...@dontspam.org> wrote in message
> >news:39e1c40c....@news.bluecrow.com...
> >> x-no-archive: yes
> >> spam...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >I will always refer to Mt. Logan as Mt. Logan and *NOT* Mt. Trudeau!
> >> >
> >> >Signed, an angry,
> >> >Pam - grrrrrr...
> >>
> >> Just a curious question, Spammie:
> >> When was the last time you had referred to Mt. Logan before last week?
> >>
> >> Supplementary Q:
> >> Does anyone at all know or care who was Mt. Logan named after? Will anyone
> >> care in 20 years who was Mt. Trudeau named after?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Greetings from Lotusland
> >
--
====================================================================================
Repetitive stress injury? K.B.S. Business Services
http://www.kbsservices.com k...@kbsservices.com
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Calgary Music http://www.calgarymusic.com
Ken Dalla Vicenza http://www.kenny.bassguitar.com
Full Frontal Nerdity http://www.ffn.ab.ca
Daze into Knights http://www.dazeintoknights.com
Millennia Sound Design http://www.millenniasounddesign.com
Westhills Kumon http://www.westhillskumon.com
The Maddhatters http://www.maddhatters.com
====================================================================================
it...@here.com
who is looking after the kids, teens, etc at home. Is Johnny pimping
the neighors daughter? Or is he breaking into the old lady on the
next streets home? Or pushing over the seniors out for a stroll, 'just
for fun' . Who knows.
There is no money to pay for extacurriclar sports in our schools, so
even before the bell goes off, a lot ot the students are discharged ,
and are seen wondering around on the streets.
Now the higher income folks, can afford to hire a sitter. But the
mininum wage folk, well just take their chances, as they sit in the
parking lot freeways for hours on end.
And the pollution in the air, I wonder how much extra pollution is
created by idleing autos at hours of idling per day,. Vancouver area
alone has a million exhausts , creating an 18 million square inch,
similar to a kilometer diameter smoke stake belching catylytic
gasoline and diesel exhaust into the atmosphere for out kids to
breathe.
Even as the planners have almost no expansion of road networks in
their schemeing minds, the land use planners are busy giving permits
for box stores, an sprawling shopp;ing malls , to which everyone has
to drive.
With new subdivisions popping us left and right, yet only connected
to an already plugged up main road, sometimes by a single lane road or
a narrow paved road that was consturcted , about 50 years ago.
Surrey BC is such a prime example of the left hand not nowing the
right hand. It currently is trying to open up BC's largest industrial
park, almost 100 square kilometers, and the write up in the paper
said " near the provincial highway". Just look at this provincial
hwy. It has a 30 km long traffic jam ever day already, with
substandard width , narrow soft shoulders,and no turnoff lanes at the
intersections. Many semi's end up in the 10 meter deep open storm
ditches along both sides of this highway,. when they try to turn off
the the crossroads. Only through illegal driving, (driving around left
turn cars etc) is traffic able to crawl at all.
This roadway way built in 1935, and basically not upgraded since.
Don't you wonder, how is it that there was enough money then to build
these roads? and no deficit.