The infamous statue
Aubrey Taylor
Candace suggested a petition be presented to the public official
who santioned the infamous statue with its hateful wording. I agree
and since we have the appropriate tool to organize such a petition
at our fingertips (freenet), it would be relatively easy to do so.
And we could make it pretty well Canada wide.
To make such a thing successful we would need a team of us to
handle the project. For example, we could have 2 or 3 people to
handle the Ottawa area, and more people to work on the province of
Ontario. Again, since the wording on the statue is an affront to
all men in Canada, we should expand the petition to cover all the
provinces and plan to deal with this at the federal and provincial
levels.
Anyone interested in helping, please respond with your comments.
Aub
--
Aubs guide for a positive outlook.
I never read the newspaper in the morning. If things are that bad,
someone will tell me. A person who tells you you have to be realistic
is really saying "Be negative like me". Aubrey Taylor
Ian Rooney
Aubrey Taylor (ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Candace suggested a petition be presented to the public official
> who santioned the infamous statue with its hateful wording. I agree
> and since we have the appropriate tool to organize such a petition
> at our fingertips (freenet), it would be relatively easy to do so.
> And we could make it pretty well Canada wide.
> To make such a thing successful we would need a team of us to
> handle the project. For example, we could have 2 or 3 people to
> handle the Ottawa area, and more people to work on the province of
> Ontario. Again, since the wording on the statue is an affront to
> all men in Canada, we should expand the petition to cover all the
> provinces and plan to deal with this at the federal and provincial
> levels.
>
> Anyone interested in helping, please respond with your comments.
> Aub
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a national organization known
as Real Women of Canada who would be
more than willing to assist with this.
The thrust of this should be, however, that
it was initiatied by men, for men, across
Canada, whatever assistance it may recieve
from whatever quarters.
Ian
--
Jim Poushinsky
Aubrey Taylor (ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Again, since the wording on the statue is an affront to
> all men in Canada,
Wrong Aub. The statue is not an affront to me, nor is it to many other
men I know. You cannot speak for Canadian men who do not take offense at
the words of the memorial to women killed by violent men. Your petition
can only record votes against the inscription.
It will be interesting to see how many others think like you, and how many
think differently. Judging by the "stinkin thinkin" ratio evinced by
the proportion of Canadians opposed to a Holocaust Memorial being included
in the new War Museum, I would guess about 1 in 5 Canadian men will support
your protest, with 4 out of 5 accepting the Memorial as it is now.
Now if Canada's population is 25 million and 1/2 are male we have 12.5
million males. Let's discount 1/3 due to illiteracy and say we have a
population of about 8 million males who can understand your petition.
So 4 million and 1 signatures would prove your case, less than 1.6 million
will prove me right.
Keep us informed of the process and results. Should keep you busy this
winter, and all that slow-burning anger you are releasing will help to keep
your house warm :-)
Cheers!
--
\.!./
Jim Poushinsky . _: * o :_ . I seem to be a verb.
ae080@freenet. :. v .: - Buckminster Fuller
carleton.ca / : \
Ian Rooney
Jim Poushinsky (ae...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Aubrey Taylor (ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------->
>> Again, since the wording on the statue is an affront to
>> all men in Canada,
>
> Wrong Aub. The statue is not an affront to me,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The statue is an affront to all men. Even you.
That you call yourself a man is correct.
Okay, Jim. Go on calling yourself a man, and
go on stereotyping yourself as violent. When
you are plucked from the crowd, mugged, and beaten,
maybe glamorously challenged and murdered for your '
maleness' you will learn.
----------------------------------------------------------
nor is it to many other
> men I know. You cannot speak for Canadian men who do not take offense at
> the words of the memorial to women killed by violent men. Your petition
> can only record votes against the inscription.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
How many women also object to your little
game of divide and conquer, Jim? How many millions of
women will sign the petition?
Talk about repressed anger. What is your mother tongue,
by the way? Your ethnic background?
Was there someone in your family Poushinsky
who was pushed a bit too hard to learn English?
It is this experience that shaped your vast contempt for the men
of this country.
You are nothing but a defeated tired old Ottawa lobbyist
and you don't like seeing your sacred cows of slander, lies,
and disinformation being systematically slaughtered.
Ian
--
Candace Lain Faucher
Jim Poushinsky (ae...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Aubrey Taylor (ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>
>> Again, since the wording on the statue is an affront to
>> all men in Canada,
>
> Wrong Aub. The statue is not an affront to me, nor is it to many other
> men I know. You cannot speak for Canadian men who do not take offense at
> the words of the memorial to women killed by violent men. Your petition
> can only record votes against the inscription.
The inscription is what this entire discussion/issue has been about .....
> It will be interesting to see how many others think like you, and how many
> think differently. Judging by the "stinkin thinkin" ratio evinced by
> the proportion of Canadians opposed to a Holocaust Memorial being included
> in the new War Museum, I would guess about 1 in 5 Canadian men will support
> your protest, with 4 out of 5 accepting the Memorial as it is now.
And, until the results are obtained - guessing.
> Now if Canada's population is 25 million and 1/2 are male we have 12.5
> million males. Let's discount 1/3 due to illiteracy and say we have a
> population of about 8 million males who can understand your petition.
> So 4 million and 1 signatures would prove your case, less than 1.6 million
> will prove me right.
We'll see. If Martin Luther King had the same train of thought - guess
nothing would have been done for his cause either .....
> Keep us informed of the process and results. Should keep you busy this
> winter, and all that slow-burning anger you are releasing will help to keep
> your house warm :-)
Has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of "slow-burning anger," has to
do with our present laws being for everyone - not some.
CLF
> Cheers!
> --
> \.!./
> Jim Poushinsky . _: * o :_ . I seem to be a verb.
> ae080@freenet. :. v .: - Buckminster Fuller
> carleton.ca / : \
--
" Your reason and your passion are the rudder and the sails of your
seafaring soul. For reason, ruling alone, is a force confining;
and passion, unattended, is a flame that burns to its own destruction."
Joe Flannigan
Jim Poushinsky (ae...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Aubrey Taylor (ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>
>> Again, since the wording on the statue is an affront to
>> all men in Canada,
>
> Wrong Aub. The statue is not an affront to me, nor is it to many other
> men I know. You cannot speak for Canadian men who do not take offense at
> the words of the memorial to women killed by violent men. Your petition
> can only record votes against the inscription.
>
> It will be interesting to see how many others think like you, and how many
> think differently.
JIm, you are once again being _wickedly_dishonest_ in inserting the word
"violent" into the discussion. This deliberate warping, by you, of the
discriminatory diatribe on this monument of sexist hatred, is very
familiar. You've lied *for years* about it! Je me souviens!!
Candace - this is old hat. It was discussed, to infinity, several years
ago. One poster even complained to the police and called government
officers concerned with human rights. They were prepared to do precisely
nothing, even though some of them agreed that the words were hatefully
disgusting.
Clearly, no other identifiable group could be inserted in the place of
"men" in the wording. One could not build a monument to people killed by
Negroes. Killed by Germans. Killed by Hopi Indians. There would be no
argument concerning its discrimnatory message. But, it is the flavour of
the times we live in to blame men for every turd in the road.
Women are turdless - doncha know... just ask Jim...
Candace Lain Faucher
Joe Flannigan (an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Jim Poushinsky (ae...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> Aubrey Taylor (ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> JIm, you are once again being _wickedly_dishonest_ in inserting the word
> "violent" into the discussion. This deliberate warping, by you, of the
> discriminatory diatribe on this monument of sexist hatred, is very
> familiar. You've lied *for years* about it! Je me souviens!!
>
> Candace - this is old hat. It was discussed, to infinity, several years
> ago. One poster even complained to the police and called government
> officers concerned with human rights. They were prepared to do precisely
> nothing, even though some of them agreed that the words were hatefully
> disgusting.
I understand that this is "old hat" - but you must forgive me for not even
being aware of this statue until a gentleman told me about it a few weeks
ago....
> Clearly, no other identifiable group could be inserted in the place of
> "men" in the wording. One could not build a monument to people killed by
> Negroes. Killed by Germans. Killed by Hopi Indians. There would be no
> argument concerning its discrimnatory message. But, it is the flavour of
> the times we live in to blame men for every turd in the road.
Exactly the issue - if you have hate laws in place; they should represent all
of us - not just some of us - i.e. male or female.
> Women are turdless - doncha know... just ask Jim...
Discrimination/violence against women etc is not in question here (in my
opinion). The statue could remain as is with a different inscription.
If it is equality that seems to be a supposed "arguement" "for" this statue -
it is contradicting itself by discriminating against men.
If they want to use the term "making people more aware" as yet another
supposed arguement ..... for whom? Ridiculous assumption to state that an
entire gender is guilty.
Maybe those women who also feel that going topless is somehow demostrating
equality (in their strange kind of "thinking") are responsible?
Rather ironic when you compare the two isn't it?
"We should be able to go topless because men can....."
Yet, this statue is stating that all men are guilty ......
Sorry for drifting here .... but seriously ....... where is the logic?
If we have hate laws to represent all of the people - since when were men
excluded from being "people?" That is my question.
CLF
Aubrey Taylor
Jim Poushinsky (ae...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Aubrey Taylor (ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>
>> Again, since the wording on the statue is an affront to
>> all men in Canada,
>
> Wrong Aub. The statue is not an affront to me, nor is it to many other
> men I know. You cannot speak for Canadian men who do not take offense at
> the words of the memorial to women killed by violent men. Your petition
> can only record votes against the inscription.
>
> It will be interesting to see how many others think like you, and how many
> think differently. Judging by the "stinkin thinkin" ratio evinced by
> the proportion of Canadians opposed to a Holocaust Memorial being included
> in the new War Museum, I would guess about 1 in 5 Canadian men will support
> your protest, with 4 out of 5 accepting the Memorial as it is now.
>
> Now if Canada's population is 25 million and 1/2 are male we have 12.5
> million males. Let's discount 1/3 due to illiteracy and say we have a
> population of about 8 million males who can understand your petition.
> So 4 million and 1 signatures would prove your case, less than 1.6 million
> will prove me right.
>
> Keep us informed of the process and results. Should keep you busy this
> winter, and all that slow-burning anger you are releasing will help to keep
> your house warm :-)
>
> Cheers!
> --
> \.!./
> Jim Poushinsky . _: * o :_ . I seem to be a verb.
> ae080@freenet. :. v .: - Buckminster Fuller
> carleton.ca / : \
Well Jim, your views are well known to most of us and I anticipated
a much stronger rebuttal from you in regard to my proposal. In my
opinion, amongst others, you are wrong in many of your posts. Since
you expressed your opinion in a polite way, this is not a flame.
And Jim, my anger is not repressed or even smouldering.
I, like Candace, have not seen the exact wording of the statue; I
live out of town. Does anyone know the exact wording, and if so,
would they kindly post it so I can fax a copy to my lawyer to get
his views from a legal standpoint before embarking on a lengthy
procedure which might be futile.
Joe Flannigan
Aubrey Taylor (ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>
> I, like Candace, have not seen the exact wording of the statue; I
> live out of town. Does anyone know the exact wording, and if so,
> would they kindly post it so I can fax a copy to my lawyer to get
> his views from a legal standpoint before embarking on a lengthy
> procedure which might be futile.
>
> Aub
>
Well, Aub... the statue gives the wording in French first... that is the
polically correct thang-ta-doo, n'est-ce pas? Then, beneath it, the
following in English:
To Honour and to Grieve
All Women
Abused and Murdered by Men
Envision a world without violence
Where Women are Respected
&
Free
There is a very simple test which proves, logically, that the wording is
abusive and hateful: substitute _any_ identifiable group of people for
the word "Men". Try Abused and Murdered by Gays. Abused and Murdered by
Negroes. Jews.
I am as much a fan of Emmeline Pankhurst as the next fellow, but there has
always been a small core of feminist activists that are man-haters.
Female separatists. Doubtless the wording is the work of this
construction boot brigade.
Joe Flannigan
Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Joe Flannigan (an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>
> Discrimination/violence against women etc is not in question here (in my
> opinion). The statue could remain as is with a different inscription.
>
> If it is equality that seems to be a supposed "arguement" "for" this statue -
> it is contradicting itself by discriminating against men.
>
> If they want to use the term "making people more aware" as yet another
> supposed arguement ..... for whom? Ridiculous assumption to state that an
> entire gender is guilty.
Well, I have to agree with you, Candace. Domestic violence is a huge
problem in society, and women and children are most frequently the
victims of it. Far more women are killed by their "mates" or "boyfriends"
than are men. _BUT_ - there are many families where the rampaging beast
in the household is not the man. There are many families where frightened
children breathe a sigh of relief when Dad walks in the door from work.
The fact is the statue singles out "men" (a 100% inclusive word), rather
than saying "To Honour Women who have been victims of Domestic Violence"
(which would inoffensive and true).
> Maybe those women who also feel that going topless is somehow demostrating
> equality (in their strange kind of "thinking") are responsible?
> Rather ironic when you compare the two isn't it?
> "We should be able to go topless because men can....."
> Yet, this statue is stating that all men are guilty ......
> Sorry for drifting here .... but seriously ....... where is the logic?
>
> If we have hate laws to represent all of the people - since when were men
> excluded from being "people?" That is my question.
>
> CLF
This question has been asked by many people. Nothing will be done about
this wording because there is a true double-standard in society which, in
this particular case, favours women. No police agency nor government
department will dare take on the elitist women's group(s) responsible for
this desecration in a public park.
Joe F.
Aubrey Taylor
Thanks Joe. Much appreciated.
Candace Lain Faucher
Joe Flannigan (an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Aubrey Taylor (ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>>
>> I, like Candace, have not seen the exact wording of the statue; I
>> live out of town. Does anyone know the exact wording, and if so,
>> would they kindly post it so I can fax a copy to my lawyer to get
>> his views from a legal standpoint before embarking on a lengthy
>> procedure which might be futile.
>>
>> Aub
>>
>
> Well, Aub... the statue gives the wording in French first... that is the
> polically correct thang-ta-doo, n'est-ce pas? Then, beneath it, the
> following in English:
Thank you for supplying the exact wording of this statue. I am quite
surprised at the lack of imagination/professionalism in the words chosen...
Could have very easily been more acceptable with: To Honour and to Grieve
all Women who have Been Abused and Murdered.
To Honour and to Grieve > All Women
> Abused and Murdered by Men
>
> Envision a world without violence
> Where Women are Respected
> &
> Free
And, to change the latter with: Envison a world without violence where we
all are respected and free.
> There is a very simple test which proves, logically, that the wording is
> abusive and hateful: substitute _any_ identifiable group of people for
> the word "Men". Try Abused and Murdered by Gays. Abused and Murdered by
> Negroes. Jews.
Exactly. This is why the inscription violates our criminal code hate laws.
> I am as much a fan of Emmeline Pankhurst as the next fellow, but there has
> always been a small core of feminist activists that are man-haters.
> Female separatists. Doubtless the wording is the work of this
> construction boot brigade.
Not too sure if I like the tone of "construction boot brigade," but I do
agree that it would appear that these extremists have been successful at
eluding laws; which I thought were for ALL people.
CLF
--
"Your standard of giving is more important than you standard of living."
Ian Rooney
Joe Flannigan (an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Aubrey Taylor (ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>>
>
> Well, Aub... the statue gives the wording in French first... that is the
> polically correct thang-ta-doo, n'est-ce pas? Then, beneath it, the
> following in English:
>
> To Honour and to Grieve
> All Women
> Abused and Murdered by Men
>
> Envision a world without violence
> Where Women are Respected
> &
> Free
>
> There is a very simple test which proves, logically, that the wording is
> abusive and hateful: substitute _any_ identifiable group of people for
> the word "Men". Try Abused and Murdered by Gays. Abused and Murdered by
> Negroes. Jews.
>
> I am as much a fan of Emmeline Pankhurst as the next fellow, but there has
> always been a small core of feminist activists that are man-haters.
> Female separatists. Doubtless the wording is the work of this
> construction boot brigade.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
There have been posts and letters to the Editor
exactly like this over the past year or two.
It is time for everyone to get behind this.
I forget who initiated it a while back (thankyou whoever
you are), but thankyou
to Candace for reviving the issue and to Aubrey
for taking a leadership role.
Ian
--
Joe Flannigan
John Baglow (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Joe Flannigan (an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> Clearly, no other identifiable group could be inserted in the place of
>> "men" in the wording. One could not build a monument to people killed by
>> Negroes. Killed by Germans.
>
> Well, as to the latter, are you getting up a petition to trash the Cenotaph?
>
No.
I think that a monument commemorating domestic violence is a wonderful
concept. I have no doubt that women have been, and continue to be,
victims of domestic violence and partner abuse. For whatever reason, the
differential in physical strength or the levels of testosterone, many women
are beaten and slapped to a bruised pulp. I am old enough to remember
when police would only have a chat with the husband/partner while the
dishevilled wife and frightened children huddled in the background.
"Really old man, you shouldn't do this sort of thing..."
I have met women I could cheerfully strangle - but I haven't. Were I
married to a battle-axe I would pack the marriage in, pronto.
The whole thing is the wording on the monument. It seems clearly
abusive to sons and brothers, husbands and grandfathers who would no
sooner strike a woman or child than ride a pogo stick into a cathedral.
What can be done?
I only pose questions... I am not far seeing enough to settle such
confusing matters. Solomon I am clearly not.
Cheers to you John,
Joe F.
Ian Rooney
John Baglow (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Joe Flannigan (an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> Clearly, no other identifiable group could be inserted in the place of
>> "men" in the wording. One could not build a monument to people killed by
>> Negroes. Killed by Germans.
>
> Well, as to the latter, are you getting up a petition to trash the Cenotaph?
>
--------------------------------------------------------------
And, as to the former, how about trashing Mike Tyson's
mansion in Beverly Hills?
The Cenotaph is not a monument to those killed
by 'Germans'. It is a monument to victims of war.
--
John Baglow
Joe Flannigan (an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Clearly, no other identifiable group could be inserted in the place of
> "men" in the wording. One could not build a monument to people killed by
> Negroes. Killed by Germans.
Well, as to the latter, are you getting up a petition to trash the Cenotaph?
--
Cheers, He totara wahi rua he kai na te ahi.
John
Candace Lain Faucher
Joe Flannigan (an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> John Baglow (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> Joe Flannigan (an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>>> Clearly, no other identifiable group could be inserted in the place of
>>> "men" in the wording. One could not build a monument to people killed by
>>> Negroes. Killed by Germans.
>>
>> Well, as to the latter, are you getting up a petition to trash the Cenotaph?
>>
>
> No.
>
> I think that a monument commemorating domestic violence is a wonderful
> concept. I have no doubt that women have been, and continue to be,
> victims of domestic violence and partner abuse. For whatever reason, the
> differential in physical strength or the levels of testosterone, many women
> are beaten and slapped to a bruised pulp. I am old enough to remember
> when police would only have a chat with the husband/partner while the
> dishevilled wife and frightened children huddled in the background.
> "Really old man, you shouldn't do this sort of thing..."
>
> I have met women I could cheerfully strangle - but I haven't. Were I
> married to a battle-axe I would pack the marriage in, pronto.
>
> The whole thing is the wording on the monument. It seems clearly
> abusive to sons and brothers, husbands and grandfathers who would no
> sooner strike a woman or child than ride a pogo stick into a cathedral.
>
> What can be done?
Possibly the idea within posting 9594? Very simply changed to delete the
concept (the way it is presently worded) that ALL men are guilty.
> I only
pose questions... I am not far seeing
enough to settle such > confusing matters. Solomon I am clearly not.
And an excellent contribution at that .... :+>
I most definitely like the way you have made mention of all of those men
who would not contribute to abuse/violence - and their voice should be
heard.
CLF
> Cheers to you John, > Joe F.
>
>
Candace Lain Faucher
Ian Rooney (at...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Joe Flannigan (an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
No problem with moving over to the passenger side to someone who has
deomonstrated strength and resources to accomplish a goal. Thanks to Aub
as well.
CLF
Ian > --
Petrus W. de Lepper
John Baglow (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Joe Flannigan (an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> Clearly, no other identifiable group could be inserted in the place of
>> "men" in the wording. One could not build a monument to people killed by
>> Negroes. Killed by Germans.
>
> Well, as to the latter, are you getting up a petition to trash the Cenotaph?
On the Cenotaph, rightly so, the Fallen are remembered.
Nowhere on the Cenotaph are the enemies to the Fallen identified.
And therein my friend lies the difference, subtle as it might seem
to you, but glaring as it is to me.
I myself was a personal victim of the enemy whose name is ommitted
from the Cenotaph, but I feel strong justified to champion the Cenotaph's
existence as it stands.
Petrus W., for whom it would be a happy day, when that
Elgin Street memorial is altered so that no
gender enemy is identified, de Lepper
John Baglow
Joe Flannigan (an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> John Baglow (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> Joe Flannigan (an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>>> Clearly, no other identifiable group could be inserted in the place of
>>> "men" in the wording. One could not build a monument to people killed by
>>> Negroes. Killed by Germans.
>>
>> Well, as to the latter, are you getting up a petition to trash the Cenotaph?
>>
>
> No.
>
> I think that a monument commemorating domestic violence is a wonderful
> concept. I have no doubt that women have been, and continue to be,
> victims of domestic violence and partner abuse. For whatever reason, the
> differential in physical strength or the levels of testosterone, many women
> are beaten and slapped to a bruised pulp. I am old enough to remember
> when police would only have a chat with the husband/partner while the
> dishevilled wife and frightened children huddled in the background.
> "Really old man, you shouldn't do this sort of thing..."
>
> I have met women I could cheerfully strangle - but I haven't. Were I
> married to a battle-axe I would pack the marriage in, pronto.
>
> The whole thing is the wording on the monument. It seems clearly
> abusive to sons and brothers, husbands and grandfathers who would no
> sooner strike a woman or child than ride a pogo stick into a cathedral.
Hardly. Who did the killing and raping--aliens? My point is not that all
men are Marc Lepines, but that we have a collective responsibility to
examine and deal with sexism. I realize that this is a foreign concept to
many--"collective" this or "social" that has been extirpated by
Thatcherism and its Canadian equivalents--but it is important, at least to
me, to understand and do something about this form of
oppression/exploitation. A monument which names the extreme results of
sexist ideology is not a threat to me, but a useful reminder. Those who
are threatened by it should check their attitudes.
Why mention men? It makes us feel uncomfortable, but so it should. Not
mentioning men, but finding some wishy-washy phrase that challenges no
one, strikes me as refusing to tell the truth because it might offend someone.
It would be like having a monument to the Holocaust but not mentioning
Nazis because they were German and not all Germans did that sort of thing
and why are we pointing fingers at Germans...
I look forward to hearing arguments from Aubrey and Candace, et al., as to
why we shouldn't have a Holocaust Museum in Los Angeles...
Candace Lain Faucher
Petrus W. de Lepper (ah...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> John Baglow (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> Joe Flannigan (an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>>> Clearly, no other identifiable group could be inserted in the place of
>>> "men" in the wording. One could not build a monument to people killed by
>>> Negroes. Killed by Germans.
>>
>> Well, as to the latter, are you getting up a petition to trash the Cenotaph?
>
> On the Cenotaph, rightly so, the Fallen are remembered.
>
> Nowhere on the Cenotaph are the enemies to the Fallen identified.
>
> And therein my friend lies the difference, subtle as it might seem
> to you, but glaring as it is to me.
>
> I myself was a personal victim of the enemy whose name is ommitted
> from the Cenotaph, but I feel strong justified to champion the Cenotaph's
> existence as it stands.
>
> Petrus W., for whom it would be a happy day, when that
> Elgin Street memorial is altered so that no
> gender enemy is identified, de Lepper
Hear - Hear
CLF
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers, He totara wahi rua he kai na te ahi.
>> John
>
>
Joe Flannigan
John Baglow (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Joe Flannigan (an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> The whole thing is the wording on the monument. It seems clearly
>> abusive to sons and brothers, husbands and grandfathers who would no
>> sooner strike a woman or child than ride a pogo stick into a cathedral.
> Hardly. Who did the killing and raping--aliens? My point is not that all
> men are Marc Lepines, but that we have a collective responsibility to
> examine and deal with sexism. I realize that this is a foreign concept to
> many--"collective" this or "social" that has been extirpated by
> Thatcherism and its Canadian equivalents--but it is important, at least to
> me, to understand and do something about this form of
> oppression/exploitation. A monument which names the extreme results of
> sexist ideology is not a threat to me, but a useful reminder. Those who
> are threatened by it should check their attitudes.
First, I believe a world in which the seas are almost fished-out, the
natural resources depleting and the eco-system collapsing will simply
*have* to take a "collective" attitude in social and economic planning if
we are to see any chance for the next generations to survive on this
planet. Placing all resources, including human, at the profit and
exploitation of the privileged few will either end, or the world will put
an end to our species.
Fair is fair. I find your argument full of holes large enough to sail the
Hindenberg through.
It defies a basic rule of logic to make a collective conclusion about a
selected group when we know that only a very few members of that group
share the postulate. All women make good wives because my father had a
good wife. All Germans are haughty because Marlene Dietrich was. All men
are well-endowed because Flannigan is... ;-)
Men and women do not have a "collective responsibility" to do anything but
be decent to one another, and to live within the law. That is what
civilisation is all about. You are not working within the time-honoured
traditions of community when you finger-point at this group or that group
as being inherently violent, or natural makers of mayhem. When you cut
out from the herd a whole drove, and brand them criminal, you make them
prey to derision, contempt, prejudice, detestation and yes, hatred. It
makes not a whit of difference whether one is speaking of a large group or
a small group - when one identifies a group and ascribes atrocities to it
as a whole - one is committing a hate crime. If you don't see this, it is
because *you* don't want to.
> Why mention men? It makes us feel uncomfortable, but so it should. Not
> mentioning men, but finding some wishy-washy phrase that challenges no
> one, strikes me as refusing to tell the truth because it might offend
> someone.
Your "truth" is not my "truth", John. Substituting the noun "men" with
another, your's is a rationalization of the same hate-mongering which not
so long ago fed the ovens of Birkenau and peopled the hungry death-camps
of the Siberian Gulag.
> It would be like having a monument to the Holocaust but not mentioning
> Nazis because they were German and not all Germans did that sort of thing
> and why are we pointing fingers at Germans...
Oh! This is *so* silly!!! You are much smarter than this, John... you
have to be...
> I look forward to hearing arguments from Aubrey and Candace, et al., as
> to why we shouldn't have a Holocaust Museum in Los Angeles...
Then again... maybe you're not...
Candace Lain Faucher
John Baglow (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Joe Flannigan (an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> John Baglow (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>>> Joe Flannigan (an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
Deleted
> Hardly. Who did the killing and raping--aliens? My point is not that all
> men are Marc Lepines, but that we have a collective responsibility to
> examine and deal with sexism. I realize that this is a foreign concept to
> many--"collective" this or "social" that has been extirpated by
> Thatcherism and its Canadian equivalents--but it is important, at least to
> me, to understand and do something about this form of
> oppression/exploitation. A monument which names the extreme results of
> sexist ideology is not a threat to me, but a useful reminder. Those who
> are threatened by it should check their attitudes.
>
> Why mention men? It makes us feel uncomfortable, but so it should. Not
> mentioning men, but finding some wishy-washy phrase that challenges no
> one, strikes me as refusing to tell the truth because it might offend someone.
> It would be like having a monument to the Holocaust but not mentioning
> Nazis because they were German and not all Germans did that sort of thing
> and why are we pointing fingers at Germans...
You are eluding the entire point at hand. If you disagree with the present
criminal code "hate laws" then you should do what it takes to get them
changed. Otherwise - our laws are for all - not some. Very simple.
Perhaps you adhere to a society which has the mentality of "pointing
fingers at each other," - I personally don't agree that we need to remain
at this simplistic and foolish type of thinking.
Candace
> I look forward to hearing arguments from Aubrey and Candace, et al., as to
> why we shouldn't have a Holocaust Museum in Los Angeles...
John Baglow
Joe Flannigan (an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> It defies a basic rule of logic to make a collective conclusion about a
> selected group when we know that only a very few members of that group
> share the postulate. All women make good wives because my father had a
> good wife. All Germans are haughty because Marlene Dietrich was. All men
> are well-endowed because Flannigan is... ;-)
So there is no such thing as socialization, then. There is no such thing
as a group. There is no such thing as society. Just a bunch of atoms.
Your chop-logic is abysmally unimpressive and disingenuous. Simple
observation reveals that there are indeed values transmitted through
socialization which can define group behaviour. There was a fine
documentary done a few years ago called (I believe) "The Pinks and the
Blues" which did a good job of demonstrating how gender values are
transmitted. If you could get off the personal affront trip and recognize
that much of what we are is a product of socialization, then there may be
the basis of a serious discussion in that.
>
> Men and women do not have a "collective responsibility" to do anything but
> be decent to one another, and to live within the law. That is what
> civilisation is all about. You are not working within the time-honoured
> traditions of community when you finger-point at this group or that group
> as being inherently violent, or natural makers of mayhem. When you cut
> out from the herd a whole drove, and brand them criminal, you make them
> prey to derision, contempt, prejudice, detestation and yes, hatred. It
> makes not a whit of difference whether one is speaking of a large group or
> a small group - when one identifies a group and ascribes atrocities to it
> as a whole - one is committing a hate crime. If you don't see this, it is
> because *you* don't want to.
>
Since I'm not doing any of this, I must conclude that your reading
comprehension is less than perfect. As for living within the law--tell
that to Martin Luther King. Are you really this naive?
> Your "truth" is not my "truth", John. Substituting the noun "men" with
> another, your's is a rationalization of the same hate-mongering which not
> so long ago fed the ovens of Birkenau and peopled the hungry death-camps
> of the Siberian Gulag.
This is too stupid to be worth refuting. Go on playing in your sandbox.
I'm outta here.
>> It would be like having a monument to the Holocaust but not mentioning
>> Nazis because they were German and not all Germans did that sort of thing
>> and why are we pointing fingers at Germans...
>
> Oh! This is *so* silly!!! You are much smarter than this, John... you
> have to be...
Funny. I don't see a response here.
>> I look forward to hearing arguments from Aubrey and Candace, et al., as
>> to why we shouldn't have a Holocaust Museum in Los Angeles...
>
> Then again... maybe you're not...
Maybe I'm not.
Candace Lain Faucher
John Baglow (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>
>> You are eluding the entire point at hand. If you disagree with the present
>> criminal code "hate laws" then you should do what it takes to get them
>> changed. Otherwise - our laws are for all - not some. Very simple.
>
> What hate laws? What on earth are you talking about? Do you have the
> slightest conception of what our "hate laws" say? About the jurisprudence
> that has grown up around them? If you think they apply to the monument in
> Minto Park, you are simply ignorant.
Um ..... do you? Last time I checked out my courses - Law was one of them.
And, as far as ignorant goes ..... if the shoe fits.
>> Perhaps you adhere to a society which has the mentality of "pointing
>> fingers at each other," - I personally don't agree that we need to remain
>> at this simplistic and foolish type of thinking.
>
> I see the question in social terms. You insist on seeing it in moral
> terms. That leaves very little discursive space to find common ground. I
> don't point fingers at people. I do try to understand the basis of
> oppression and exploitation, which (unfortunately) requires some
> obervation and analysis of how an entire society works. Let's just leave
> it at that. (I have a simple rule: I stay on a discussion thread until
> someone calls me a nazi. Flannigan just did, so I'm going to go elsewhere.)
The statue does absolutely nothing toward the supposed "cause" which you
claim it is honouring. Condensending and unproductive.
> Happy New Year.
Ditto.
CLF
> --
> Cheers, He totara wahi rua he kai na te ahi.
> John
John Baglow
Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> You are eluding the entire point at hand. If you disagree with the present
> criminal code "hate laws" then you should do what it takes to get them
> changed. Otherwise - our laws are for all - not some. Very simple.
What hate laws? What on earth are you talking about? Do you have the
slightest conception of what our "hate laws" say? About the jurisprudence
that has grown up around them? If you think they apply to the monument in
Minto Park, you are simply ignorant.
>
> Perhaps you adhere to a society which has the mentality of "pointing
> fingers at each other," - I personally don't agree that we need to remain
> at this simplistic and foolish type of thinking.
I see the question in social terms. You insist on seeing it in moral
terms. That leaves very little discursive space to find common ground. I
don't point fingers at people. I do try to understand the basis of
oppression and exploitation, which (unfortunately) requires some
obervation and analysis of how an entire society works. Let's just leave
it at that. (I have a simple rule: I stay on a discussion thread until
someone calls me a nazi. Flannigan just did, so I'm going to go elsewhere.)
Happy New Year.
John Baglow
Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> John Baglow (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>>
>>> You are eluding the entire point at hand. If you disagree with the present
>>> criminal code "hate laws" then you should do what it takes to get them
>>> changed. Otherwise - our laws are for all - not some. Very simple.
>>
>> What hate laws? What on earth are you talking about? Do you have the
>> slightest conception of what our "hate laws" say? About the jurisprudence
>> that has grown up around them? If you think they apply to the monument in
>> Minto Park, you are simply ignorant.
>
> Um ..... do you? Last time I checked out my courses - Law was one of them.
> And, as far as ignorant goes ..... if the shoe fits.
Well, that's telling me... <snicker>
Perhaps we can begin by having you inform your audience what four groups
are protected under Section 319 of the Criminal Code. And what statutory
defences are available to any person or persons charged under this Section.
Supplementary question, for historical background: what happened to
Section 181 of the Criminal Code?
Aubrey's conversation with his lawyer, I suspect, will mark a new record
for brevity.
Darren Spratt
John Baglow (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Joe Flannigan (an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
[snip]
>> The whole thing is the wording on the monument. It seems clearly
>> abusive to sons and brothers, husbands and grandfathers who would no
>> sooner strike a woman or child than ride a pogo stick into a cathedral.
> Hardly. Who did the killing and raping--aliens?
I can tell you who did not do the killing - sons and brothers, husbands and
grandfathers, who, as Joe has put it, would no sooner strike a woman or child
than.. So why must these ones be condemned with others who have?
> My point is not that all
> men are Marc Lepines, but that we have a collective responsibility to
Kind of odd in a way how Marc Lepine is just as much the product of the last
thirties years of feminism (where men's collective responsibility is pressed
upon the awareness of every man), as he is the product of an evil society out to
oppress and abuse women. I wonder how much Marc's mother made him aware of his
oppressive heritage all those years she raised him? After all, he was the son of
the man who beat her.
> examine and deal with sexism. I realize that this is a foreign concept to
> many--"collective" this or "social" that has been extirpated by
> Thatcherism and its Canadian equivalents--but it is important, at least to
> me, to understand and do something about this form of
> oppression/exploitation. A monument which names the extreme results of
I think examining men's collective responsibility (guilt) in the backdrop
of women examing theirs, would be a good and worthwhile endevour. That way,
there would be no finger pointing, which pin-pointing only men's responsibility
does, and there might be an opportunity for real healing between the sexes. But
this other way, of painint everyone with the same brushstroke is utter nonsense.
You see what it accomplishes even in a relatively confined place as Freenet?
> sexist ideology is not a threat to me, but a useful reminder. Those who
> feel threatened should check their attitudes.
Why? Are we now to have the attitude police?
> Why mention men? It makes us feel uncomfortable, but so it should. Not
> mentioning men, but finding some wishy-washy phrase that challenges no
> one, strikes me as refusing to tell the truth because it might offend someone.
> It would be like having a monument to the Holocaust but not mentioning
> Nazis because they were German and not all Germans did that sort of thing
> and why are we pointing fingers at Germans...
I don't think having a phrase that would demonstrate society's abhorence for all
violence to be such a bad thing. Hell, if I thought feminists were as against
violence reguarly committed against men as they are women, I'd support theri
cause. Instead, they set themselves up and their plight as being more desparate
than the *other* members of society, and no wonder they don't receive widespread
support. Look at Quebec now! The rest of Canada doesn't want to give in to
their demands because they believe Quebec is trying to set itself up as soething
over-and-above the rest of Canada. And who's going to go along with that? Only
a fool! Or, such people who would support setting women's plight up as being
more desparate than men's.
When you look at the numbers today, there's a good many men dying at the hands of
women - murdered while they slept - so why the hell should it be any different
for men or for women? Aren't we all equal in this society of ours?
Darren
--
Candace Lain Faucher
John Baglow (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> John Baglow (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>>> Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>>>
>>>> You are eluding the entire point at hand. If you disagree with the present
>>>> criminal code "hate laws" then you should do what it takes to get them
>>>> changed. Otherwise - our laws are for all - not some. Very simple.
>>>
>>> What hate laws? What on earth are you talking about? Do you have the
>>> slightest conception of what our "hate laws" say? About the jurisprudence
>>> that has grown up around them? If you think they apply to the monument in
>>> Minto Park, you are simply ignorant.
>>
>> Um ..... do you? Last time I checked out my courses - Law was one of them.
>> And, as far as ignorant goes ..... if the shoe fits.
>
> Well, that's telling me... <snicker>
>
> Perhaps we can begin by having you inform your audience what four groups
> are protected under Section 319 of the Criminal Code. And what statutory
> defences are available to any person or persons charged under this Section.
The criminal code book is located in most public libraries? Seems to me,
that when I took my course - we were not required to memorize this entire
book. And, that the criminal code book/s were only offerred for our use
when our teacher supplied use of them. If they are in our Public
libraries - have yet to make a trip there.
Now - back to your questions - or should I state your seemingly quiz
questions. Cannot look up section 319 without the book. Nor can I answer
your question concerning statutory defences.
Please explain to me why you have required to ask these questions - with
reference to a statue which we are hoping to get changed/removed.
> Supplementary question, for
historical
background: what happened to > Section 181 of the Criminal Code?
What happened to section 181? Who the hell knows. First of all - what
was section 181? Again, unless one has a copy of the criminal code -
cannot answer. What is section 180 - or 182? Giving me a better idea of
what or where you are trying to go here.
> Aubrey's conversation with his lawyer, I suspect, will mark a new record
> for brevity.
According to Aub's posting - inaccurate assumption on your part.
CLF
> --
> Cheers, He totara wahi rua he kai na te ahi.
> John
John Baglow
Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> John Baglow (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>>> John Baglow (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>>>> Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>>>>
>>>>> You are eluding the entire point at hand. If you disagree with the present
>>>>> criminal code "hate laws" then you should do what it takes to get them
>>>>> changed. Otherwise - our laws are for all - not some. Very simple.
>>>>
>>>> What hate laws? What on earth are you talking about? Do you have the
>>>> slightest conception of what our "hate laws" say? About the jurisprudence
>>>> that has grown up around them? If you think they apply to the monument in
>>>> Minto Park, you are simply ignorant.
>>>
>>> Um ..... do you? Last time I checked out my courses - Law was one of them.
>>> And, as far as ignorant goes ..... if the shoe fits.
You raised the Criminal Code. I noted that you seemed unfamiliar, to put
it mildly, with the "hate law" provisions and related jurisprudence. Your
last two sentences, above, indicate that you were willing to fake it for a
while, so I called your bluff.
Section 319 is the "hate law" section. It contains no reference to either
men or women as a protected group under that provision. Section 181
("spreading false news") was struck down by the Supreme Court in the
Zundel case, as being too restrictive to free speech under the Charter. I
can assure you that any law that would have the monument in Minto Park
removed would never withstand Charter scrutiny.
Without going into detail, the statutory defences to a charge under
Section 319 would be in themselves more than enough to keep the monument
in place even if Section 319 applied, which it doesn't.
>> Aubrey's conversation with his lawyer, I suspect, will mark a new record
>> for brevity.
>
> According to Aub's posting - inaccurate assumption on your part.
On the contrary.
Candace Lain Faucher
John Baglow (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> John Baglow (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>>> Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>>>> John Baglow (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>>>>> Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>
> You raised the Criminal Code. I noted that you seemed unfamiliar, to put
> it mildly, with the "hate law" provisions and related jurisprudence. Your
> last two sentences, above, indicate that you were willing to fake it for a
> while, so I called your bluff.
First of all - I do not bluff - another incorrect assumption. If I do not
have the criminal code book within my reach for reference does not
indicate that I did not take a law course - or do a detailed research
assignment on Lepine - which did require learning about our "hate laws."
> Section 319 is the "hate law" section. It contains no reference to either
> men or women as a protected group under that provision. Section 181
> ("spreading false news") was struck down by the Supreme Court in the
> Zundel case, as being too restrictive to free speech under the Charter. I
> can assure you that any law that would have the monument in Minto Park
> removed would never withstand Charter scrutiny.
And, since there is no reference to men or women - this does not dictate
than an amendment cannot be passed.
Laws are changed frequently.
> Without going into detail, the statutory defences to a charge under
> Section 319 would be in themselves more than enough to keep the monument
> in place even if Section 319 applied, which it doesn't.
If this is accurate - then we need to address changes to the criminal code
"hate laws" to include references made to gender.
>>> Aubrey's conversation with his lawyer, I suspect, will mark a new record
>>> for brevity.
>>
>> According to Aub's posting - inaccurate assumption on your part.
>
> On the contrary.
WOuld appreciate Aub giving us a more accurate discription on the length
of the telephone/faxing to his lawyer.
CLF
> Cheers, He totara wahi rua he kai na te ahi.
> John
John Baglow
My, Ms Faucher, you do squirm, don't you? You began all this by raising
the Criminal Code and telling me, in effect, "If you don't like the hate
law provisions, then change them--right now they apply to everyone, and I
want that 'statue' [It's not a statue, actually--JB] removed."
I noted that you appeared to be unfamiliar with the hate law provisions.
You claimed by implication that having an introductory law course made you
more knowledgeable on the subject.
I raised Sn.319 and Sn. 181--you confessed that you knew absolutely zip
about either. But instead of having the grace to admit that you were
barking up the wrong tree, you shifted the grounds of the argument. Now it
would appear that you want amendments to S. 319--before, you were oh so
certain that Sn. 319 covered your little banning project, and you presumed
to lecture me on the subject.
What a way to argue! I know that you are often on the side of the angels,
and I agree with much of what you post on other ngs. But you have hit
bottom on this one, and you should have the decency to admit it.
--
Aubrey Taylor
John Baglow (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>
>>> Aubrey's conversation with his lawyer, I suspect, will mark a new record
>>> for brevity.
>>
>> According to Aub's posting - inaccurate assumption on your part.
>
> On the contrary.
>
John,
I said already I would no waste my time or energy with such negative
and abject nonsense. My lawyer is in the corporate field and over the
years in working together, we have become close friends. Our discussion
on this matter taught me a great deal, and we plan to further this
over lunch at the end of the week, after I have talked with the city.
John, I say this with some respect for your feelings but you do seem
to express youself in a most irritating way. It occers to me that you
do this to get attention like a little boy I used to watch
jumping up and down in a puddle screaming "See me mommy, see me daddy"
as his parents watched him with misguided admiration.
Cheers,
Candace Lain Faucher
John Baglow (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>
>> Not too sure what your problem is .... no squirming occurring at this end.
>> My contention is the wording on a statue - and the question was raised
>> whether or not it is contradicting our hate laws.
>
>
> See post 9611. *You* raised the question, by alleging that the hate laws
> applied to the "statue" and that I apparently had a problem with that. I
> don't and didn't have a problem with the hate laws. You have now come
> around 180 degrees and are arguing that the hate laws should be amended to
> cover the wording on the "statue."
>
> Naw, no squirming there...
Your accusations are endless. No - there is no squirming at this end.
And yes, if they hate laws need amending - they need amending. It is my
personal opinion - that they elude gender when certain people choose them
to elude gender. When Lepine murdered just female engineers - the hate
laws were referred to. This statue is directed at one particular gender.
Yet - behold - suddenly we take note that no "gender" is defined in our
present hate laws.
I would prefer a judge/lawyer making the decision. This would not be myself,
and I cannot assume your qualifications.
CLF
Not very intellectually honest, now, are you? >
> > --
> Cheers, He totara wahi rua he kai na te ahi.
> John
Jim Poushinsky
Aubrey Taylor (ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>>
> John, I say this with some respect for your feelings but you do seem
> to express youself in a most irritating way. It occers to me that you
> do this to get attention like a little boy I used to watch
> jumping up and down in a puddle screaming "See me mommy, see me daddy"
> as his parents watched him with misguided admiration.
Methinks you are identifying with those parents Aub, only you don't intend
to make their mistake, right?
So you must see yourself as Aub the father, Patriarch of the Freenet Sigs,
absolute judge of all us "children" who dare to express an opinion here! No
wonder you have such difficulty with the words on the monument - how dare
women and children ask men to stop treating them with violence, that's so
"offensive" to your ears. Maybe if you weren't trying so hard to tell
yourself all the violence you and your compatriots committed in the war
wasn't male violence you might understand what the victims of male
violence here at home are saying. When a man can kill a stranger and his
people and feel no remorse because he is acting as a patriot, what's to
stop him using that same power to keep women and children in a subservient
place, especially when they dare to oppose his patriarchal "right" to be
obeyed and treated with defference. Isn't that what many of the men who
torture and kill women and children are doing, asserting this male power?
The UN survey pointed out that Canada is the best country in the world for
a male, but there are 13 other countries where women are treated better.
Things will not change here as long as patriotic patriarchs like yourself
are successful in keeping women and children in a subservient place. The
fact the monument to slain women exists at all is a sign your power is
slipping. It gives hope that attitudes can be changed and true equality
and freedom for women will someday be won. May the truth prevail, if you
chose to take offense from people stating their truth that's your problem,
not theirs. Maybe there's something in yourself that needs changing.
--
\.!./
Jim Poushinsky . _: * o :_ . I seem to be a verb.
ae080@freenet. :. v .: - Buckminster Fuller
carleton.ca / : \
John Baglow
Aubrey Taylor (ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> John Baglow (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>>
>>>> Aubrey's conversation with his lawyer, I suspect, will mark a new record
>>>> for brevity.
>>>
>>> According to Aub's posting - inaccurate assumption on your part.
>>
>> On the contrary.
>>
> John,
> I said already I would no waste my time or energy with such negative
> and abject nonsense. My lawyer is in the corporate field and over the
> years in working together, we have become close friends. Our discussion
> on this matter taught me a great deal, and we plan to further this
> over lunch at the end of the week, after I have talked with the city.
> John, I say this with some respect for your feelings but you do seem
> to express youself in a most irritating way. It occers to me that you
> do this to get attention like a little boy I used to watch
> jumping up and down in a puddle screaming "See me mommy, see me daddy"
> as his parents watched him with misguided admiration.
Gee, Aub, if you didn't want people disagreeing with you, why didn't you
just say so?
But you did clear up one point which had been bothering me. You have
explained that your lawyer is in the corporate field, which explains why
he was unaware of the restrictive language of S. 319 of the Criminal Code.
I will close by noting that you asked for comment: I provided some. For
which I have been called everything from a nazi to an intellectually
dishonest snob to ignorant to a spoiled child. Namecalling is the first
refuge of the Backlash Gang that has taken over this SIG. So keep it. This
is clearly no place for anyone with ideas of their own. If it hadn't been
for Ms Faucher's egregiously ignorant comments on the Criminal Code, I'd
have been miles away by now.
I'm glad you finally discovered that the statue-which-is-not-a-statue is
in Minto Park, not Minto Place. Progress is progress, I suppose...
John Baglow
Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Not too sure what your problem is .... no squirming occurring at this end.
> My contention is the wording on a statue - and the question was raised
> whether or not it is contradicting our hate laws.
See post 9611. *You* raised the question, by alleging that the hate laws
applied to the "statue" and that I apparently had a problem with that. I
don't and didn't have a problem with the hate laws. You have now come
around 180 degrees and are arguing that the hate laws should be amended to
cover the wording on the "statue."
Naw, no squirming there...
Not very intellectually honest, now, are you?
Candace Lain Faucher
John Baglow (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> John Baglow (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
(deleted)
> My, Ms Faucher, you do squirm, don't you? You began all this by raising
> the Criminal Code and telling me, in effect, "If you don't like the hate
> law provisions, then change them--right now they apply to everyone, and I
> want that 'statue' [It's not a statue, actually--JB] removed."
Not too sure what your problem is .... no squirming occurring at this end.
My contention is the wording on a statue - and the question was raised
whether or not it is contradicting our hate laws.
Now - if you (apparently wanting to prove that you have more knowledge
concerning our hate laws) agree with the statue as is - so be it. This
discussion is not revolving around your need to discredit myself or make
such ignorant assumptions about me.
> I noted that you appeared to be unfamiliar with the hate law provisions.
> You claimed by implication that having an introductory law course made you
> more knowledgeable on the subject.
I am not claiming anything. I stated that I do have a law course, which
happened to include research on our hate laws. If this is so unbelievable
to you - take the time to drive to my home - and I'll show you it i.e. the
credit course and mark of "excellent."
> I raised Sn.319 and Sn. 181--you confessed that you knew absolutely zip
> about either. But instead of having the grace to admit that you were
> barking up the wrong tree, you shifted the grounds of the argument. Now it
> would appear that you want amendments to S. 319--before, you were oh so
> certain that Sn. 319 covered your little banning project, and you presumed
> to lecture me on the subject.
You are being very unreasonable here. I stated that we were not
required to memorize the criminal code book. Since it is such a thick
detailed book -
it is unreasonable of you to expect me to be able to know each and every
law by number as requested.
Futhermore - at no time did I attempt to lecture you on anything. If you
can offer constructive information on this discussion - would be very
pleased to see it within this sig. i.e. exact wording of some of the hate
laws in question for example.
> What a way to argue! I know that you are often on the side of the angels,
> and I agree with much of what you post on other ngs. But you have hit
> bottom on this one, and you should have the decency to admit it.
Shall not admit to any such thing. You have consistantly made inaccurate
assumptions - which came very close to accusing me of being a lier.
Not sticking to the topic - goal at hand.
Now - if you disagree with "others" who do want to see the wording changed
on this statue - this is your priviledge. Not agreeing with the way you
have chosen to make your point.
CLF
> Cheers,
He totara wahi rua he kai na te ahi. > John
G. Timothy Walton
Jim Poushinsky (ae...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> So you must see yourself as Aub the father, Patriarch of the Freenet Sigs,
> absolute judge of all us "children" who dare to express an opinion here! No
> wonder you have such difficulty with the words on the monument - how dare
> women and children ask men to stop treating them with violence, that's so
> "offensive" to your ears. Maybe if you weren't trying so hard to tell
> yourself all the violence you and your compatriots committed in the war
> wasn't male violence you might understand what the victims of male
> violence here at home are saying. When a man can kill a stranger and his
> people and feel no remorse because he is acting as a patriot, what's to
> stop him using that same power to keep women and children in a subservient
> place, especially when they dare to oppose his patriarchal "right" to be
> obeyed and treated with defference. Isn't that what many of the men who
> torture and kill women and children are doing, asserting this male power?
Jim, thanks for reminding once again of why there's no point in trying
to explain things to some people.
Also for why violence isnn't the answer; it just makes martyrs of those
who should be allowed to expose themselves as exactly what they accuse
others of being.
--
"Carrot juice constitutes murder,
Greenhouses prisons for slaves.
It's time to stop all this gardening.
Let's call a spade a spade." -- The Arrogant Worms
Candace Lain Faucher
G. Timothy Walton (bc...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Jim Poushinsky (ae...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>
>> So you must see yourself as Aub the father, Patriarch of the Freenet Sigs,
>> absolute judge of all us "children" who dare to express an opinion here! No
>> wonder you have such difficulty with the words on the monument - how dare
>> women and children ask men to stop treating them with violence, that's so
>> "offensive" to your ears. Maybe if you weren't trying so hard to tell
>> yourself all the violence you and your compatriots committed in the war
>> wasn't male violence you might understand what the victims of male
>> violence here at home are saying. When a man can kill a stranger and his
>> people and feel no remorse because he is acting as a patriot, what's to
>> stop him using that same power to keep women and children in a subservient
>> place, especially when they dare to oppose his patriarchal "right" to be
>> obeyed and treated with defference. Isn't that what many of the men who
>> torture and kill women and children are doing, asserting this male power?
>
> Jim, thanks for reminding once again of why there's no point in trying
> to explain things to some people.
> Also for why violence isnn't the answer; it just makes martyrs of those
> who should be allowed to expose themselves as exactly what they accuse
> others of being.
Exactly. Words falling on deaf ears .... or in cyber-space .... words in
front of blind eyes.
It is really amazing that we accomplish anything at all when you
consider such vast differences .....
CLF
> "Carrot juice constitutes murder,
> Greenhouses prisons for slaves.
> It's time to stop all this gardening.
> Let's call a spade a spade." -- The Arrogant Worms
John Baglow
Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:>
> Your accusations are endless. No - there is no squirming at this end.
> And yes, if they hate laws need amending - they need amending. It is my
> personal opinion - that they elude gender when certain people choose them
> to elude gender. When Lepine murdered just female engineers - the hate
> laws were referred to. This statue is directed at one particular gender.
Marc Lepine was guilty of much, but not of an infraction of Sn. 319 of the
Criminal Code. Sn. 318 specifies four areas--race, religion, colour and
ethnic origin--which are incorporated by reference into Sn.319.
Please continue to enjoy your little dip into the miasmic goo of backlash
politics. As noted, it was the technical question about the hate laws
which held my interest for awhile. Not any more.
--
John Angus
John Baglow (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> John, I say this with some respect for your feelings but you do seem
>> to express youself in a most irritating way. It occers to me that you
>> do this to get attention like a little boy I used to watch
>> jumping up and down in a puddle screaming "See me mommy, see me daddy"
>> as his parents watched him with misguided admiration.
>
> Gee, Aub, if you didn't want people disagreeing with you, why didn't you
> just say so?
>
I believe his point was your unneccesarily sarcastic and contemptuous
manner of delivering your opinions was not particularly helpful to
clear and orderly debate.
At a guess.
JA
--
"Life, Liberty, & the Pursuit of Happiness" es...@cleveland.freenet.edu
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
"Peace, Order, & Good Government" an...@freenet.carleton.ca
John Baglow
John Angus (an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> John Baglow (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>>> John, I say this with some respect for your feelings but you do seem
>>> to express youself in a most irritating way. It occers to me that you
>>> do this to get attention like a little boy I used to watch
>>> jumping up and down in a puddle screaming "See me mommy, see me daddy"
>>> as his parents watched him with misguided admiration.
>>
>> Gee, Aub, if you didn't want people disagreeing with you, why didn't you
>> just say so?
>>
> I believe his point was your unneccesarily sarcastic and contemptuous
> manner of delivering your opinions was not particularly helpful to
> clear and orderly debate.
>
> At a guess.
Not guilty.
This actually started on the men's issues SIG. As you know, however,
things kind of spill over into this one on occasion.
I began by responding to Zachary's posting. I was neither contemptuous nor
sarcastic, but I did make the point that all this stuff about "guilt" and
"blame" which people with my politics are supposed to go in for is not
true, at least in my case. I tried to draw a distinction between
responsibility and guilt. For this I was called a nazi by another poster,
and then Darren waded in, and we had Candace begin by saying that I had
problems with the Criminal Code and end by saying that *she* had problems
with it...
So towards the end I was probably showing some frustration. Quite
justifiably, IMO. Anyway, who asked you? :)
John Angus
Jim Poushinsky (ae...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>
> So you must see yourself as Aub the father, Patriarch of the Freenet Sigs,
> absolute judge of all us "children" who dare to express an opinion here! No
> wonder you have such difficulty with the words on the monument - how dare
> women and children ask men to stop treating them with violence, that's so
> "offensive" to your ears.
It's been a while since I've read any Poushinskyisms. I am again
reminded of why I loath leftist do-gooders and their sanctimonious,
holier than thou preaching - not to mention their ability to see
black and white, up as down, and themselves as intelligent..
Maybe if you weren't trying so hard to tell
> yourself all the violence you and your compatriots committed in the war
> wasn't male violence you might understand what the victims of male
Howl on, Jim! Bang that drum! Show the world yet again why nothing
you say merits any more respect than the mouthings of a crazed whino.
Aubrey Taylor
John Angus (an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> John Baglow (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>>> John, I say this with some respect for your feelings but you do seem
>>> to express youself in a most irritating way. It occers to me that you
>>> do this to get attention like a little boy I used to watch
>>> jumping up and down in a puddle screaming "See me mommy, see me daddy"
>>> as his parents watched him with misguided admiration.
>>
>> Gee, Aub, if you didn't want people disagreeing with you, why didn't you
>> just say so?
>>
> I believe his point was your unneccesarily sarcastic and contemptuous
> manner of delivering your opinions was not particularly helpful to
> clear and orderly debate.
>
Aub: That's about it JA. I respect most peoples opinions including "John"'s
but have difficulty when such opinions couched as a personal attack.
Thabks.
> At a guess.
>
>
> JA
>
>
> --
> "Life, Liberty, & the Pursuit of Happiness" es...@cleveland.freenet.edu
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> "Peace, Order, & Good Government" an...@freenet.carleton.ca
John Angus
John Baglow (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> So towards the end I was probably showing some frustration. Quite
> justifiably, IMO. Anyway, who asked you? :)
>
Jesus, if I waited for people to actually ASK my opinion I'd
be a lurker forever.
Besides, people need my opinion. It's good for them, whether they
know it or not.
JA
--
I should like the window to open onto the Lake of Geneva - and there I'd
sit and read all day like the picture of somebody reading. - John Keats
.........................................................................
John D. Angus Ottawa, Ontario, an...@freenet.carleton.ca
CANADA es...@Cleveland.freenet.edu
John Baglow
Aubrey Taylor (ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Aub: That's about it JA. I respect most peoples opinions including "John"'s
> but have difficulty when such opinions couched as a personal attack.
> Thabks.
It would appear that to Aubrey, disagreement with his opinions is
sufficient to be denounced for making a personal attack. I made no such
attack. But this is a wonderful tactic for dismissing the opposition.
Good move, Aubrey.
John Angus
John Baglow (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Aubrey Taylor (ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>
>> Aub: That's about it JA. I respect most peoples opinions including "John"'s
>> but have difficulty when such opinions couched as a personal attack.
>> Thabks.
>
> It would appear that to Aubrey, disagreement with his opinions is
> sufficient to be denounced for making a personal attack. I made no such
> attack. But this is a wonderful tactic for dismissing the opposition.
> Good move, Aubrey.
Oh come on. You and I often make personal attacks, even if they're
couched in sarcasm, contemptuous dismissals and generalisms (Mine tend to be
rather more direct).
I do try to avoid them except when dealing with people who, in my
humble (well...) opinion really deserve to be insulted, or, preferably
are themselves being insulting (thus letting me say HE STARTED IT!),
but on occasion a bit of annoyance has been known to creep through
my postings directed at people who really don't deserve it. That
fellow on ott.general, for instance, who says people being treated
like crap by their employers need only go to college...
But I digress, you were actually rather rude to poor, sweet, gentle
Candace, who, if nothing else, does tend to be well-meaning.
Even if she is occasionally damned annoying.
(Whoops, sorry, Candace)
John Baglow
John Angus (an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> John Baglow (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> Aubrey Taylor (ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>>
>>> Aub: That's about it JA. I respect most peoples opinions including "John"'s
>>> but have difficulty when such opinions couched as a personal attack.
>>> Thabks.
>>
>> It would appear that to Aubrey, disagreement with his opinions is
>> sufficient to be denounced for making a personal attack. I made no such
>> attack. But this is a wonderful tactic for dismissing the opposition.
>> Good move, Aubrey.
>
> Oh come on. You and I often make personal attacks, even if they're
> couched in sarcasm, contemptuous dismissals and generalisms (Mine tend to be
> rather more direct).
Well, let's see. I responded (in the men's SIG) to a fellow named Zachery
or Zachary, and I didn't think my response was in any way a personal
attack, although it was strongly worded. I responded to Aubrey at the
start on this SIG, and do not believe I personally attacked him. Darren?
Sure, in response to his usual blustery and insulting tirade. Joe
Flannigan? Only after he compared me with the nazis. Candace? Only after
she accused me of "eluding [sic] the point" and calling a monument to
women massacred in Montreal hateful. That did get me going, I'll admit it,
and her superior tone about the Criminal Code, and her general prissiness.
But there I go, and to forestall an endless chain of more and more
contentless posts, I'll apologize for my tone (but not my substance) in
responding to her.
> But I digress, you were actually rather rude to poor, sweet, gentle
> Candace, who, if nothing else, does tend to be well-meaning.
Good grief...everybody tends to be well-meaning. That's no excuse!
Candace Lain Faucher
Mmmmmm.... don't like the tone of the above comment/s.....
CLF
> Good grief...everybody tends to be well-meaning. That's no excuse!
>
>
> --
> Cheers, He totara wahi rua he kai na te ahi.
> John
Maria L. Evans
John Angus (an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> John Baglow (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> So towards the end I was probably showing some frustration. Quite
>> justifiably, IMO. Anyway, who asked you? :)
>>
> Jesus, if I waited for people to actually ASK my opinion I'd
> be a lurker forever.
>
> Besides, people need my opinion. It's good for them, whether they
> know it or not.
>
Wow, that's why my grandmother used to say I needed an enema!
Seriously, I think there are several good points on both sides. I have
been lurking on this thread mostly as I have felt that the way hate crimes
in the US are irrelavent to how hate crimes in Canada are handled and I
haven't been very anxious to put in my .02.
IMHO: I think you all are victim to some of the same mindsets we have
fallen to in the lower 48. Namely the "the law says exactly this" mindset.
I will refer you to the Texas judge Roy Bean of the American West
(immortalized by the sexiest gray haired man alive, Paul Newman)...
The REAL Judge Roy BEan, "The Law West of the Pecos" used a dog eared
statute of the laws of Texas to make his decisions. Once, a white
railroader killed a Chinese laundryman in a fight regarding his shirts
that he sent to the laundry. Judge Roy Bean thumbed through his Statutes
of Texas front to back, back to front, etc., and finally put it down and
pronounced: "I don't see nothin' here in this here Statutes of Texas that
says it's agin' the law to kill a Chinaman. Case dismissed."
John is arguing that section 318/319 does not address gender. Could it
be that we are asking if it's "agin' the law to kill a Chinaman?" If so,
does the law need to be changed in YOUR (not my) opinions. After all, it
ain't my country.
Next question: In the U.S. we have constitutional literalists (who
believe the wording, not necessarily the time and attitudes of the people
who wrote it) and we have constitutional revisionalists (who believe the
Constitution is a living document subject to flexible interpretation given
the social and legal mores of the times.) Is that also true in Canada?
How does that affect your arguement?
--
Maria L. Evans ap...@freenet.carleton.ca
"Man blames fate for other accidents but feels personally
responsible for a hole in one." --Martha Beckman
Candace Lain Faucher
Joe Flannigan (an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Maria L. Evans (ap...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>>
>> John is arguing that section 318/319 does not address gender. Could it
>> be that we are asking if it's "agin' the law to kill a Chinaman?" If so,
>> does the law need to be changed in YOUR (not my) opinions. After all, it
>> ain't my country.
>>
>> Next question: In the U.S. we have constitutional literalists (who
>> believe the wording, not necessarily the time and attitudes of the people
>> who wrote it) and we have constitutional revisionalists (who believe the
>> Constitution is a living document subject to flexible interpretation given
>> the social and legal mores of the times.) Is that also true in Canada?
>> How does that affect your arguement?
>> --
>
> Maria, once again you introduce some home-spun common sense into this
> discussion, which has deteriorated (as it *always* does) into the
> unspeakably silly:
>
> 1/"He called me a Nazi!"
> 2/"You are not as smart as I think I am!"
> 3/"I believe the Goddess will guide us all in our travail..."
>
> As you probably know, Maria, Canada has only gotten a Constitution (of
> sorts) since 1981. We rely heavily on English tradition, the English
> Common Law established through the ages from Magna Charta. Quebec, in
> civil matters, cleaves to the Code Napoleon.
>
> Much Canadian law is recent, and being newly formed, is confusing and
> contradictory.
>
> Thus we have one man (Keegstra) having a conviction being upheld for
> teaching that there was no holocaust, and another (Zunder) being acquitted
> for teaching that there was no holocaust. It is, I think, because one man
> said it in the classroom, and another said it on a recorded message.
>
> It is a strange aberration that a winning case could be made against the
> Minto Park "monument" if *EITHER* Section 339 of the Criminal Code _or_
> the Canadian Charter of Rights And Freedoms shared one of two items.
>
> The Criminal Code of Canada proscribes written hate messages in public
> places, and provides punitive redress as a consequence of such messages.
> It does not, however, recognize "gender" as a basis for hate messages. It
> recognizes only race, colour, creed and ethnic origin. It is my opinion,
> that if gender was included as a contentious ground, the monument's
> wording would be found a hate message.
>
> The Canadian Charter of Rights And Freedoms includes 'gender' as a class
> against which a discriminatory practice (or hate message) can be
> promulgated. Unfortunately, it must be communicated using a
> telecommunications device over which the Federal Government has some say.
>
> The monument "skirts" these two laws. The moment gender is introduced as
> a ground in Section 318/319 of the Criminal Code of Canada the monument
> must be changed. The moment the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
> expands hate messages beyond telecommunications devices the monument must
> be changed.
>
> But, there are a myriad of laws, including By-Laws. Perhaps even an old
> document in the archive which, when the Earl and Countess of Minto allowed
> their illustrious name to be used for the park in the 1890s, contained an
> clause that no monument might occupy the area of the park where the
> monument stands.
>
> In any event, when I first posted to this SIG in 1993, it was on the
> Monument in Minto Park. Nothing was settled then, nothing will be now.
> It is just an opportunity for a couple of noisome fellows who were weaned
> too early to be rude to the young lady who innocently raised the question.
> Having not been through all this nonsense before.
>
> I do admire Aubrey's taking some interest in the matter.
>
> I quote the appropriate sections of the Cdn. Human Rights Act, below, for
> any who are interested. I have posted the the Section 319 of the Criminal
> Code earlier.
>
> CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
> R.S., 1985, c. H-6
> amended by
> R.S., c. 1985, c. 31 (lst Supp.)
> R.S., c. 1985, c. 32 (2nd Supp.)
> R.S., 1985, c. H-6 July, 1996
>
> An Act to extend the laws in Canada that proscribe discrimination
>
> 2. The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give
> effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative
> authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals
> should have an equal opportunity to make for themselves the lives
> that they are able and wish to have, consistent with their duties
> and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or
> prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race,
> national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual
> orientation, marital status, family status, disability or
> conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted.
>
> R.S., 1985, c. H-6, s. 2; 1996, c. 14, s. 1.
>
>
> 12. It is a discriminatory practice to publish or display before
> the public or to cause to be published or displayed before the
> public any notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation
> that
>
> (a) expresses or implies discrimination or an intention to
> discriminate, or
>
> (b) incites or is calculated to incite others to
> discriminate if the discrimination expressed or implied,
> intended to be expressed or implied or incited or calculated
> to be incited would otherwise, if engaged in, be a
> discriminatory practice described in any of sections 5 to 11
> or in section 14. 1976-77, c. 33, s. 12; 1980-81-82-83, c.
> 143, s. 6.
Thank you for your valuable contribution/s. Believe that the statue does
indeed contradict the above.
CLF
> Hate messages
> 13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of
> persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause
> to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of
> the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the
> legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to
> expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the
> fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the
> basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
>
> Exception
> (2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of any matter that is
> communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a
> broadcasting undertaking.
John Angus
Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>>> But I digress, you were actually rather rude to poor, sweet, gentle
>>> Candace, who, if nothing else, does tend to be well-meaning.
>
> Mmmmmm.... don't like the tone of the above comment/s.....
>
My poor, deliciously guileless Candace! My heartfelt apologies if you saw
anything in the above to cause you even a moment more puzzlement than
you're used to.
You know I love you, after all.
Candace Lain Faucher
John Angus (an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>>>> But I digress, you were actually rather rude to poor, sweet, gentle
>>>> Candace, who, if nothing else, does tend to be well-meaning.
>>
>> Mmmmmm.... don't like the tone of the above comment/s.....
>>
>
> My poor, deliciously guileless Candace! My heartfelt apologies if you saw
> anything in the above to cause you even a moment more puzzlement than
> you're used to.
Unlike some - I readily admit to not having any more substance than the
average grain of sand. Vapour to be exact.
> You know I love you, after all.
I prefer to use words such as love in a more truthful and appropriate way.
CLF
> JA
> --
> I should like the window to open onto the Lake of Geneva - and there I'd
> sit and read all day like the picture of somebody reading. - John Keats
> .........................................................................
> John D. Angus Ottawa, Ontario, an...@freenet.carleton.ca
> CANADA es...@Cleveland.freenet.edu
Candace Lain Faucher
Joe Flannigan (an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>
>> Mmmmmm.... don't like the tone of the above comment/s.....
>
> Neither do I, Candace.
>
> Every few months I read this SIG, and I always find myself reading your
> postings. They are intelligent, provocative and, what is unusual for the
> times, considerate of others.
>
> I think you're a fine young lady, Candace.
Appreciate your kind words - thank you. Problem is, taint as "young" as
some may believe ..... young in spirit though. :+>
Over thirty is not considered "young" in this day and age .... unfortunately.
:+>
CLF
> and NOW --- I'M OUTTA
HERE!!!!! >
> __
> ____ _____________ __________ __________
> |\::::\ |\::::::::::::\ |\::::::::::\ \ Colour /
> |##\::::\ |##\::::\~~\::::\ |##\:::\~~~~~ \ This /
> ____ \###\::::\ \###\::::\ \::::\ \###\::::::\ \ Pi /
> |\::::\__\###\::::\ \###\::::\__\::::\ \###\:::\_______ \nk/
> |##\::::::::::::::::\ \###\::::::::::::\ \###\::::::::::\ \/
> \##|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| \##|~~~~~~~~~~~~| \##|~~~~~~~~~~|
> \|________________| \|____________| \|__________|