Economic Left/Right: -4.75
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33

Craig Welch wrote in message >...
>Please take this questionnaire, and report back here
>
>http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/
>
>Thanks,
>
>--
>Craig

"Craig Welch" > wrote in message
...
> Please take this questionnaire, and report back here
>
> http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Craig

Economic Left/Right: -.75
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.28




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Craig Welch" > wrote in message
...
> Please take this questionnaire, and report back here
>
> http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/
>
> Thanks,
>
> --

Economic Left/Right: -5.50
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.38

Jack Franken

"Jack Schidt=AE" wrote:

>
> > Please take this questionnaire, and report back here
> >
> > http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > --
>
> Economic Left/Right: -5.50
> Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.38

I was
Economic Left/Right: -6.75
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.46

That put me right alongside Gandhi, but I am not about to
start drinking my own urine.

"Craig Welch" > wrote in message
...
: Please take this questionnaire, and report back here
:
: http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/
:
: Thanks,
:
: --
: Craig
=============

Economic Left/Right: - 3.88
Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.15

--
Cyndi
<Remove a "b" to reply>

> Craig Welch wrote in message >...
> >Please take this questionnaire, and report back here
> >
> >http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/

Economic Left/Right: -1.50
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.18

I'm in almost exactly the same spot as Jean Chretien...



> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >--
> >Craig

Craig Welch > wrote in
:

> http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/

Hmmm...I'm farther left than Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama. Well, I
always considered them to be too right wing for me anyway :-)

"Dick Thompson" > wrote in
news:ESQwb.108075$Dw6.514944@attbi_s02:

> Economic Left/Right: -4.75

The scale is wrong...it should be plus towards the left and minus towards
the right.

(Tony Lew) wrote in
om:

>> Craig Welch wrote in message
>> >...
>> >Please take this questionnaire, and report back here
>> >
>> >http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/
>
> Economic Left/Right: -1.50
> Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.18
>
> I'm in almost exactly the same spot as Jean Chretien...

Poor you. You'll have to listen to him rant on about being Minister of his
and Minister of that...

Michel Boucher > wrote in
:

> Craig Welch > wrote in
> :
>
>> http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/
>
> Hmmm...I'm farther left than Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama. Well, I
> always considered them to be too right wing for me anyway :-)

Ok...forgot to mention:

Left/Right -9.62

(Actually, it should be further still to the good but some of the questions
were not really fair...there was no "no opinion" option for one thing)

Authoritarian / Libertarian -6.82

(That's wrong too. I'm as far from being a "libertarian" [is that anything
like a freedom-loving librarian?] as I am from being a slimeball capitalist
[is there any other kind?])

Michel Boucher wrote:

> Michel Boucher > wrote in
> :
>
> > Craig Welch > wrote in
> > :
> >
> >> http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/
> >
> > Hmmm...I'm farther left than Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama. Well, I
> > always considered them to be too right wing for me anyway :-)
>
> Ok...forgot to mention:
>
> Left/Right -9.62
>
> (Actually, it should be further still to the good but some of the
questions
> were not really fair...there was no "no opinion" option for one thing)
>
> Authoritarian / Libertarian -6.82
>
> (That's wrong too. I'm as far from being a "libertarian" [is that
anything
> like a freedom-loving librarian?] as I am from being a slimeball
capitalist
> [is there any other kind?])


What!? No wet dreams about Ayn Rand when you were a kid...???

[For the record, I am:
Economic Left/Right: -6.38
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.28]

--
Best
Greg

Craig Welch > wrote:
>Please take this questionnaire, and report back here
>
>http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/
>

I seem to have become more Liberal and Libertarian
since I first took this several years ago.

I blame Bush.

--Blair
"And soy sauce."

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
"Jack Schidt®" wrote:

>
> > Please take this questionnaire, and report back here
> >
> > http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > --
>
> Economic Left/Right: -5.50
> Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.38

I was
Economic Left/Right: -6.75
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.46

That put me right alongside Gandhi, but I am not about to
start drinking my own urine.

Not even iced?

Jack Beverage

"Dick Thompson" > wrote in message news:<ESQwb.108075$Dw6.514944@attbi_s02>...
> Economic Left/Right: -4.75
> Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33
>
> Craig Welch wrote in message >...
> >Please take this questionnaire, and report back here
> >
> >http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >--
> >Craig

Economic Left/Right: 1.12
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.26

And I note that of international types, I'm all alone. Of course,
since they didn't actually poll the people on the list, you can't say
for sure.

I think it was my support of arts and personal freedom that puts me on
the Libertarian side.

I imagine most of you on the Eleft side are there because of "The
evils of international corporations." I hope this will then be your
last post, until you get that solar-powered computer handcrafted in a
collective artisan's colony, and using fair-trade routers and
unregulated wireless frequencies.

Greg Zywicki

"Greg Zywicki" > wrote in message
om...
> "Dick Thompson" > wrote in message
news:<ESQwb.108075$Dw6.514944@attbi_s02>...
> > Economic Left/Right: -4.75
> > Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33
> >
> > Craig Welch wrote in message
>...
> > >Please take this questionnaire, and report back here
> > >
> > >http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >
> > >--
> > >Craig
>
> Economic Left/Right: 1.12
> Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.26
>
> And I note that of international types, I'm all alone. Of course,
> since they didn't actually poll the people on the list, you can't say
> for sure.
>
> I think it was my support of arts and personal freedom that puts me on
> the Libertarian side.
>
> I imagine most of you on the Eleft side are there because of "The
> evils of international corporations." I hope this will then be your
> last post, until you get that solar-powered computer handcrafted in a
> collective artisan's colony, and using fair-trade routers and
> unregulated wireless frequencies.
>
> Greg Zywicki


You're the only one so far who's attacked anyone who's posted to this
thread. Very telling.

Jack Gandhi

>
>
Economic Left/Right: -4.88
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.38

Whatever the hell that means... ;-)

--
Steve

Men are from Earth. Women are from Earth. Deal with it.

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 22:33:44 +1000, Craig Welch >
wrote:

>On 26 Nov 2003 05:30:09 -0800, (Greg Zywicki)
>wrote:
>
>>Economic Left/Right: 1.12
>>Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.26
>>
>>And I note that of international types, I'm all alone. Of course,
>>since they didn't actually poll the people on the list, you can't say
>>for sure.
>
>No you're not. I'm also in that quadrant.

I tried it and on Economic I was 0.00
and on L/A I was 0.36
I didn't know I was so middle of the road.
Pan Ohco

Pan Ohco > wrote in
:

> I tried it and on Economic I was 0.00
> and on L/A I was 0.36
> I didn't know I was so middle of the road.

So much for the vaunted conservatism of Pan-bo :-) I, on the other hand,
am as left wing as they come, nay...more, even...

Nyah nyah...Pan is a MOTR :-p

Craig Welch wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:07:21 GMT, Steve Calvin
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>Economic Left/Right: -4.88
>>Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.38
>>
>>Whatever the hell that means... ;-)
>
>
> It means exactly what the website in question says it does.
>
Oh gee, what a big help! THANK YOU!!! <cough> And you felt abliged to
post such a no-reply reply, why?

--
Steve

Men are from Earth. Women are from Earth. Deal with it.

Michel Boucher > wrote in message >. ..
> Pan Ohco > wrote in
> :
>
> > I tried it and on Economic I was 0.00
> > and on L/A I was 0.36
> > I didn't know I was so middle of the road.
>
> So much for the vaunted conservatism of Pan-bo :-) I, on the other hand,
> am as left wing as they come, nay...more, even...
>
> Nyah nyah...Pan is a MOTR :-p

Hah! Leave it to the revisionist extremists to try and turn virtue
into a curse.

We're reasonable, well rounded folk, Pan. Everything we say now holds
the most signifiant relevance. We're the normal, average joes that
polliticians pretend they support.

Greg Zywicki

(Greg Zywicki) wrote in
om:

>> Nyah nyah...Pan is a MOTR :-p
>
> Hah! Leave it to the revisionist extremists to try and turn virtue
> into a curse.

Perhaps we are not revisionist, except asa facile and unsubstantiated
criticism from the centrists, and see the curse for what it truly is :-)

Michel Boucher > wrote in message >. ..
> (Greg Zywicki) wrote in
> om:
>
> >> Nyah nyah...Pan is a MOTR :-p
> >
> > Hah! Leave it to the revisionist extremists to try and turn virtue
> > into a curse.
>
> Perhaps we are not revisionist, except asa facile and unsubstantiated
> criticism from the centrists, and see the curse for what it truly is :-)

You don't understand, though. I do not fit the conventional
definition of
middle of the road. So if a site ID's middle of the road as what I
believe, then middle of the road must be a much better condition than
is creditted.

Greg Zywicki

"Greg Zywicki" > wrote in message
om...
> Michel Boucher > wrote in message
>. ..
> > (Greg Zywicki) wrote in
> > om:
> >
> > >> Nyah nyah...Pan is a MOTR :-p
> > >
> > > Hah! Leave it to the revisionist extremists to try and turn virtue
> > > into a curse.
> >
> > Perhaps we are not revisionist, except asa facile and unsubstantiated
> > criticism from the centrists, and see the curse for what it truly is :-)
>
> You don't understand, though. I do not fit the conventional
> definition of
> middle of the road. So if a site ID's middle of the road as what I
> believe, then middle of the road must be a much better condition than
> is creditted.
>
> Greg Zywicki

You need to do something about that low self esteem, chum.

Jack Ego

(Greg Zywicki) wrote in
om:

> You don't understand, though. I do not fit the conventional
> definition of middle of the road.

So, if I understand this correctly, you believe yourself to be middle of
the road (keep in mind that in some parts of the US that *could* put you
just slightly to the left of Jesse Helms) but you consider yourself an
unconventional middle-of-the-roader (unlike Pan Ohco...bwahaha!).

> So if a site ID's middle of the road as what I
> believe, then middle of the road must be a much better condition than
> is creditted.

The point is, I believe, that is there is neutral position (at least in
NA/Euro politics) where opinions pro one thing are cancelled out by
others that are anti something similar. For example, I oppose abortion
not because I am religious (I am not) but because I believe that judges
are not competent to evaluate the definition of life. Hell, nobody is.
But I recognize that the decisions to allow abortion were taken with
available knowledge and with the intention of preventing further harm to
women, so I am not opposed either to legislating in favour of abortion.

I still scored -6.25 (or something like that) on the
authoritarian/libertarian scale.

If you scored MOTR, then that's probably because you ARE a conventional
MOTR. If you didn't but think you should have, then that may be because
you're not :-)

On 12/02/2003 3:01 PM, in article
, "Michel Boucher"
> opined:

> (Greg Zywicki) wrote in
> om:
>
>> You don't understand, though. I do not fit the conventional
>> definition of middle of the road.
>
> So, if I understand this correctly, you believe yourself to be middle of
> the road (keep in mind that in some parts of the US that *could* put you
> just slightly to the left of Jesse Helms) but you consider yourself an
> unconventional middle-of-the-roader (unlike Pan Ohco...bwahaha!).
>
>> So if a site ID's middle of the road as what I
>> believe, then middle of the road must be a much better condition than
>> is creditted.
>
> The point is, I believe, that is there is neutral position (at least in
> NA/Euro politics) where opinions pro one thing are cancelled out by
> others that are anti something similar. For example, I oppose abortion
> not because I am religious (I am not) but because I believe that judges
> are not competent to evaluate the definition of life.


But as a canadian you DO believe judges are competent enough to allow
sodomites to legally marry.



Hell, nobody is.
> But I recognize that the decisions to allow abortion were taken with
> available knowledge and with the intention of preventing further harm to
> women, so I am not opposed either to legislating in favour of abortion.
>
> I still scored -6.25 (or something like that) on the
> authoritarian/libertarian scale.
>
> If you scored MOTR, then that's probably because you ARE a conventional
> MOTR. If you didn't but think you should have, then that may be because
> you're not :-)
>

The Wolf > wrote in news:BBF2AE6C.4724C%
:

>> The point is, I believe, that is there is neutral position (at least
>> in NA/Euro politics) where opinions pro one thing are cancelled out by
>> others that are anti something similar. For example, I oppose
>> abortion not because I am religious (I am not) but because I believe
>> that judges are not competent to evaluate the definition of life.
>
> But as a canadian you DO believe judges are competent enough to allow
> sodomites to legally marry.

Ok, this is your one and only answer. My killfile disappeared in a hard
drive crash and I am in the process of reinstating and you will be its
very first client. So here goes...relish it because you don't get
another one. Oh, don't bother replying because you'll only make yourself
look more stupid than you already are.

As a Canadian, I believe that our Constitution has force of law within
this country (I think you would agree that that is a basic fact of life
even for you with your Constitution). A judge in Ontario decided that
the provisions of the Marriage Act which defined marriage as a "union
between a man and a woman to the exclusion of others" was
unconstitutional, by OUR constitution, given that the Charter of Rights
is therein imbedded, hence his decision to allow the marriage of two
homosexuals on the basis that it COULD NOT BE FORBIDDEN.

That decision is well within the rights of any court of the land,
although maybe not in your land.

Consequently, and notwithstanding the opposition of far right members of
Parliament, an interim decision was taken at the federal level to NOT
appeal this decision BECAUSE IT WAS CORRECT by virtue of the terms of the
Constitution, in other words, there was no error in procedure on the part
of the judge.

Facing the fact that now all but one province (the entities charged in
the 1867 Constitution Act, formerly known as the British North America
Act, with administering and registering marriages) have agreed that they
will not act in contravention to a modification to the Marriage Act that
would read that marriage is the union of two persons (no mention of man
and woman to the exclusion).

Parliament has sent a request for reference to the Supreme Court
(basically a request for research and counsel) with respect to this and
their report is expected in about six months. So currently, marriage
between homosexuals (sodomites *and* the female kind) is in a gray area
where, although it is not yet enacted as law, it cannot forbidden either.
Basically, the only situation that exists in Canada right now is that no
law will be used to challenge marriage of homosexuals...except in
Alberta. Alberta (well Ralph Klein in loco parentis) has decided
(without benefit of popular consultation) that he will refuse to register
marriages between homosexuals. THat decision can't stop them from
happening because the definition is in the hands of the federal
government.

The new Marriage Act will also state that churches are not obliged to
marry people. That was always intended so that a church that would
object to performing marriage ceremonies between homosexuals could not be
forced to do so.

So you see, it's not a question of belief as it is well within the pervue
of the courts to act in these matters, here and in the Untied States.

Now, as to whether I believe this is a correct decision, yes, I do. I am
not a homosexual and have never secretly harboured thougts that I might
be. But yes, I do believe that marriage between homosexuals in NO WAY
affects marriage between heterosexuals, nor does it diminish it. I
understand you have deep-seated prejudices against them (perhaps a touch
of uncertainty in your own orientation?) but not everyone shares your
view that homosexuals are de facto child-molesters. As it turns out, the
majority of child-molesters are heterosexual. But that is neither here
nor there as you have no right to vote in Canada and I do.

--
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting
to me, because as we know, there are known knowns, there are things we
know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we
know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown
unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know."

Donald Rumsfeld
2003 Recipient Foot in Mouth Award

On 2 Dec 2003 23:01:03 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:

(Greg Zywicki) wrote in
. com:
>
>> You don't understand, though. I do not fit the conventional
>> definition of middle of the road.
>
>So, if I understand this correctly, you believe yourself to be middle of
>the road (keep in mind that in some parts of the US that *could* put you
>just slightly to the left of Jesse Helms) but you consider yourself an
>unconventional middle-of-the-roader (unlike Pan Ohco...bwahaha!).
>
Michel, I also was suprised to see that I was a middle of the roader.
But did you ever think that,that means that you, and others that rant
about what I say, are definately off center.

This also means that the majority of the people in this group more
closely agree with me and not with you.

And that the people that agree with you are just more vocal about
thier oddball beliefs? ; )
Pan Ohco

On 12/03/2003 4:53 AM, in article
, "Michel Boucher"
> opined:

> The Wolf > wrote in news:BBF2AE6C.4724C%
> :
>
>>> The point is, I believe, that is there is neutral position (at least
>>> in NA/Euro politics) where opinions pro one thing are cancelled out by
>>> others that are anti something similar. For example, I oppose
>>> abortion not because I am religious (I am not) but because I believe
>>> that judges are not competent to evaluate the definition of life.
>>
>> But as a canadian you DO believe judges are competent enough to allow
>> sodomites to legally marry.
>
> Ok, this is your one and only answer. My killfile disappeared in a hard
> drive crash and I am in the process of reinstating and you will be its
> very first client. So here goes...relish it because you don't get
> another one. Oh, don't bother replying because you'll only make yourself
> look more stupid than you already are.
>
> As a Canadian, I believe that our Constitution has force of law within
> this country (I think you would agree that that is a basic fact of life
> even for you with your Constitution). A judge in Ontario decided that
> the provisions of the Marriage Act which defined marriage as a "union
> between a man and a woman to the exclusion of others" was
> unconstitutional, by OUR constitution, given that the Charter of Rights
> is therein imbedded, hence his decision to allow the marriage of two
> homosexuals on the basis that it COULD NOT BE FORBIDDEN.
>
> That decision is well within the rights of any court of the land,
> although maybe not in your land.
>
> Consequently, and notwithstanding the opposition of far right members of
> Parliament, an interim decision was taken at the federal level to NOT
> appeal this decision BECAUSE IT WAS CORRECT by virtue of the terms of the
> Constitution, in other words, there was no error in procedure on the part
> of the judge.
>
> Facing the fact that now all but one province (the entities charged in
> the 1867 Constitution Act, formerly known as the British North America
> Act, with administering and registering marriages) have agreed that they
> will not act in contravention to a modification to the Marriage Act that
> would read that marriage is the union of two persons (no mention of man
> and woman to the exclusion).
>
> Parliament has sent a request for reference to the Supreme Court
> (basically a request for research and counsel) with respect to this and
> their report is expected in about six months. So currently, marriage
> between homosexuals (sodomites *and* the female kind) is in a gray area
> where, although it is not yet enacted as law, it cannot forbidden either.
> Basically, the only situation that exists in Canada right now is that no
> law will be used to challenge marriage of homosexuals...except in
> Alberta. Alberta (well Ralph Klein in loco parentis) has decided
> (without benefit of popular consultation) that he will refuse to register
> marriages between homosexuals. THat decision can't stop them from
> happening because the definition is in the hands of the federal
> government.
>
> The new Marriage Act will also state that churches are not obliged to
> marry people. That was always intended so that a church that would
> object to performing marriage ceremonies between homosexuals could not be
> forced to do so.
>
> So you see, it's not a question of belief as it is well within the pervue
> of the courts to act in these matters, here and in the Untied States.
>
> Now, as to whether I believe this is a correct decision, yes, I do. I am
> not a homosexual and have never secretly harboured thougts that I might
> be. But yes, I do believe that marriage between homosexuals in NO WAY
> affects marriage between heterosexuals, nor does it diminish it. I
> understand you have deep-seated prejudices against them (perhaps a touch
> of uncertainty in your own orientation?) but not everyone shares your
> view that homosexuals are de facto child-molesters. As it turns out, the
> majority of child-molesters are heterosexual. But that is neither here
> nor there as you have no right to vote in Canada and I do.

Why do you have to compose a ****ing 800 page novel to answer a simple
question? I fell asleep one quarter of the way through your post.

Please edit HEAVILY and repost.

The Wolf wrote:

> > Now, as to whether I believe this is a correct decision, yes, I do. I am
> > not a homosexual and have never secretly harboured thougts that I might
> > be. But yes, I do believe that marriage between homosexuals in NO WAY
> > affects marriage between heterosexuals, nor does it diminish it. I
> > understand you have deep-seated prejudices against them (perhaps a touch
> > of uncertainty in your own orientation?) but not everyone shares your
> > view that homosexuals are de facto child-molesters. As it turns out, the
> > majority of child-molesters are heterosexual. But that is neither here
> > nor there as you have no right to vote in Canada and I do.
>
> Why do you have to compose a ****ing 800 page novel to answer a simple
> question? I fell asleep one quarter of the way through your post.

Your attention span must have lapsed before you got to the point where he told
you to read it carefully because he was not going to waster any more time
responding to you. He is probably grateful to you for proving his point about
you.


>
>
> Please edit HEAVILY and repost.

"The Wolf" > wrote in message
...
> On 12/03/2003 4:53 AM, in article


3rd time into the killfille (stuff, stuff). Now stay in there, Morpho, lest
I unleash the power of my God to vanquish you and your kind.

Jack God

On 12/03/2003 12:09 PM, in article , "Dave
Smith" > opined:

> The Wolf wrote:
>
>>> Now, as to whether I believe this is a correct decision, yes, I do. I am
>>> not a homosexual and have never secretly harboured thougts that I might
>>> be. But yes, I do believe that marriage between homosexuals in NO WAY
>>> affects marriage between heterosexuals, nor does it diminish it. I
>>> understand you have deep-seated prejudices against them (perhaps a touch
>>> of uncertainty in your own orientation?) but not everyone shares your
>>> view that homosexuals are de facto child-molesters. As it turns out, the
>>> majority of child-molesters are heterosexual. But that is neither here
>>> nor there as you have no right to vote in Canada and I do.
>>
>> Why do you have to compose a ****ing 800 page novel to answer a simple
>> question? I fell asleep one quarter of the way through your post.
>
> Your attention span must have lapsed before you got to the point where he told
> you to read it carefully because he was not going to "waster" any more time
> responding to you. He is probably grateful to you for proving his point about
> you.
>
>
>>
>>
>> Please edit HEAVILY and repost.
>

What is waster? Some kind of *******ized French?

On 12/03/2003 1:09 PM, in article
, "Jack Schidt®"
> opined:

>
> "The Wolf" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 12/03/2003 4:53 AM, in article
>
>
> 3rd time into the killfille (stuff, stuff). Now stay in there, Morpho, lest
> I unleash the power of my God to vanquish you and your kind.
>
> Jack God
>
>
Yea, If Mac ever goes out of business and I am forced to buy Windoze Jack
Dumb**** will be the first one in my killfile.

Actually most of what comes out of your keyboard is so assinine it's almost
entertaining!

The Wolf wrote:

>
> >> Please edit HEAVILY and repost.
> >
>
> What is waster? Some kind of *******ized French?

It was obviously a typo. I suppose we could all go back and check your spelling
errors, like "Woe Vs. Wade", or the atrocious grammar exhibited in everything you
post.

Pan Ohco > wrote in
:

>>consider yourself an unconventional middle-of-the-roader (unlike
>>Pan Ohco...bwahaha!).
>
> Michel, I also was suprised to see that I was a middle of the
> roader. But did you ever think that,that means that you, and
> others that rant about what I say, are definately off center.

I do not rant about what you say, no matter how you see it. And I
never wanted to be centre. That is much too whitebread for my taste.

> This also means that the majority of the people in this group more
> closely agree with me and not with you.

Or not. If they do, then that is how it is and I have no desire to
modify my thinking to join the silent majority...not without having a
lobotomy first anyway.

> And that the people that agree with you are just more vocal
> about thier oddball beliefs? ; )

Oddball? Perhaps in Flyspeck, Loweezeeana, but there's more variety
in the whole world than is found in your nightly FoxABCNBCCBS
newscasts...and praise the gods it is so!

--
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened
are always interesting to me, because as we know,
there are known knowns, there are things we know
we know. We also know there are known unknowns;
that is to say we know there are some things we
do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns
- the ones we don't know we don't know."

Donald Rumsfeld
2003 Recipient Foot in Mouth Award

Dave Smith > wrote in
:

> The Wolf wrote:
>
>> > Now, as to whether I believe this is a correct decision, yes, I
>> > do. I am not a homosexual and have never secretly harboured
>> > thougts that I might be. But yes, I do believe that marriage
>> > between homosexuals in NO WAY affects marriage between
>> > heterosexuals, nor does it diminish it. I understand you have
>> > deep-seated prejudices against them (perhaps a touch of
>> > uncertainty in your own orientation?) but not everyone shares
>> > your view that homosexuals are de facto child-molesters. As it
>> > turns out, the majority of child-molesters are heterosexual.
>> > But that is neither here nor there as you have no right to vote
>> > in Canada and I do.
>>
>> Why do you have to compose a ****ing 800 page novel to answer a
>> simple question? I fell asleep one quarter of the way through
>> your post.
>
> Your attention span must have lapsed before you got to the point
> where he told you to read it carefully because he was not going to
> waster any more time responding to you. He is probably grateful
> to you for proving his point about you.

Actually he got at least as far as that point because he used another
address to bypass my killfile. Obviously can't take having his ill-
informed views questioned.

--
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened
are always interesting to me, because as we know,
there are known knowns, there are things we know
we know. We also know there are known unknowns;
that is to say we know there are some things we
do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns
- the ones we don't know we don't know."

Donald Rumsfeld
2003 Recipient Foot in Mouth Award

In article >, Michel Boucher
> wrote:

> Pan Ohco > wrote in
> :
>
> > And that the people that agree with you are just more vocal
> > about thier oddball beliefs? ; )
>
> Oddball? Perhaps in Flyspeck, Loweezeeana, but there's more variety
> in the whole world than is found in your nightly FoxABCNBCCBS
> newscasts...and praise the gods it is so!

Hear hear!

Haven't been following this thread, but that's a very succinct and
excellent statement of truth.

--
Jack

On 12/03/2003 2:00 PM, in article , "Dave
Smith" > opined:

> The Wolf wrote:
>
>>
>>>> Please edit HEAVILY and repost.
>>>
>>
>> What is waster? Some kind of *******ized French?
>
> It was obviously a typo. I suppose we could all go back and check your
> spelling
> errors, like "Woe Vs. Wade", or the atrocious grammar exhibited in everything
> you
> post.
>
>
>
I do spell check everything. Woe is a word, that's the problem. BUT, at
least you understood what I was trying to say.

On 12/03/2003 2:23 PM, in article
, "Michel Boucher"
> opined:

>
>
> Actually he got at least as far as that point because he used another
> address to bypass my killfile. Obviously can't take having his ill-
> informed views questioned.


YOU ****ING LIAR I HAVE NOT CHANGED MY ADDRESS SINCE SOME COCKSUCKING
cANADIAN POSTED MY REAL EMAIL MONTHS AGO. WHO DO SUPPOSE THAT WAS?

The Wolf wrote:

>
> >>
> >> What is waster? Some kind of *******ized French?
> >
> > It was obviously a typo. I suppose we could all go back and check your
> > spelling
> > errors, like "Woe Vs. Wade", or the atrocious grammar exhibited in everything
> > you
> > post.
> >
> >
> >
> I do spell check everything. Woe is a word, that's the problem. BUT, at
> least you understood what I was trying to say.

Waster is also a word that passed through spell check, but I have never hears of a
legal case "Woe Vs. Wade".

"Ken Davey" > wrote in message
...
> The Wolf wrote:
> > On 12/03/2003 4:53 AM, in article
> > , "Michel Boucher"
> > > opined:
> >
> >> The Wolf > wrote in news:BBF2AE6C.4724C%
> >> :
> >>
> >>>> The point is, I believe, that is there is neutral position (at
> >>>> least in NA/Euro politics) where opinions pro one thing are
> >>>> cancelled out by others that are anti something similar. For
> >>>> example, I oppose abortion not because I am religious (I am not)
> >>>> but because I believe that judges are not competent to evaluate
> >>>> the definition of life.
> >>>
> >>> But as a canadian you DO believe judges are competent enough to
> >>> allow sodomites to legally marry.
> >>
> <snip excellent answer>
> >
> > Why do you have to compose a ****ing 800 page novel to answer a simple
> > question? I fell asleep one quarter of the way through your post.
> >
> > Please edit HEAVILY and repost.
>
> Ah yes, one of the joys of running a new machine - the re-building of my
> killfile.
> Welcome to it wolfie.
>
> Ken.
>
>

He puts the 'dick' in 'dickhead'. He needs to die.

Jack Assignment