[Diogenes]

<br /> <br /> “…Dio would think 'tattling' was a threat…”<br /> Your suspicions are pure conjecture <br /> <br /> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=83421&dict=CALD <br /> Tattle: Definition<br /> tittle-tattle Show phonetics<br /> noun [U] OLD-FASHIONED INFORMAL<br /> talk about other people's lives that is usually unkind, disapproving or not true; gossip<br /> <br /> informant Show phonetics<br /> noun [C] <br /> someone who gives information to another person or organization:<br /> a police/secret informant<br /> Our survey is based on information from over 200 informants.<br /> <br /> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dandruff <br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Dandruff <br /> One who always ditches, or "flakes," hence the name dandruff; usually for an insufficient reason, getting the hopes up of friends and family and ditching them for materialistic sluts.<br /> "I think Tyler needs to get a bottle of head 'n' shoulders cause he's been pullin some dandruff moves lately."<br /> <br /> <br /> Narcarc , oops! Typo and I’ll let it stand for the sake of frivolity For shame! Any way Marcarc will talk about me but not to me and that to me is the sign of a coward. By his claim that he “skips over” my posts will put him in disadvantage while continuing to speculate about me and what I say on these pages.<br /> The man has, by his admission, has a comprehension problem or so the claim states, however that doesn’t prevent him from commenting on that which he doesn’t comprehend.<br /> <br /> A Remedial reading course might help.<br /> <br /> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'>

[h.f. wolff]

Diogenes,<br /> <br /> Don't feel alone!<br /> <br /> Certainly I, and many others I believe, commiserate with you on your "battle" with the CJC brainwashed.<br /> <br /> Since you are doing an excellent job making intellectual mincemeat out of them I see no urgency in chiming in.<br /> <br /> I am disappointed however how easily the site owner succumbed to CJC pressure. The intellectually honest way would have been to simply post the CJC concerns and let the 'great unwashed' pick them apart word for word, showing them for what they are.<br /> <br /> And C. Whelan's comparisons with the National Socialists in Germany are mildly irritating because she is using the rubbish of the MSM to formulate her arguments against the MSM and powers-that-be, while stating that she is no historian. A little broader reading would help her formulate more forceful arguments.<br /> <br /> Sooo, Dio., do not feel abandoned, and keep up the great work.<br /> <br /> Kind regards,<br /> <br /> H.F. Wolff<br /> <br /> P.S.: I also happen to be rather busy professionally. No remittance man nor family trust income. <br /> <br />

[whelan costen]

I don't mind being mildly irritating, but I fail to understand these comments by wolf: 'And C. Whelan's comparisons with the National Socialists in Germany are mildly irritating because she is using the rubbish of the MSM to formulate her arguments against the MSM and powers-that-be, while stating that she is no historian. A little broader reading would help her formulate more forceful arguments.'<br /> <br /> Perhaps you could explain these statements. Is there something written that I should be a scholar on these subjects? Am I required to have a forceful argument? My purpose for posting to this thread are quite simple, I believe there should be a discussion. I hadn't known I was using MSM rubbish to formulate my arguments...on what do you base that statement? Although I appreciate someone telling me where I get my info (hmmm), however I said I don't know everything about this issue, and apparently none of us can, because much has been kept secret. When I read,( many years ago), NAZI Gold, I found out more of what had been kept secret, but that still doesn't make me an expert. <br /> <br /> My point is rather simple. We can't know unless we can discuss and learn. We can't learn if we can't discuss. But that seems to be the point of these laws doesn't it.

[rearguard]

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] However, keep in mind that Zundel was not held under hate speech charges, he was held under TERRORIST charges while some other country could cook up some laws to charge him with. When the law permits ANYONE of being charged under such conditions, then its not exactly moot.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> It is my understanding that Zundel was not actually charged with anything, but was held under a "security certificate" after being tossed out of the USA on a bogus visa violation. Zundel was not found guilty of anything under the norms of law, and evidence against him was held in secrecy with no ability for a defense. Appeals under the security certificate are not allowed.<br /> <br /> Zundel may be a number of things, but it is patently absurd for the government to have arrested Zundel as a terrorist, which is no doubt why it was done using evidence that no one but agents of the government could "see".<br /> <br /> The presiding "judge" was a former CSIS boss, who oversaw CSIS when it was investigating Zundel - and found absolutely nothing, not even <a href="http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/04/09/Zundel_appeal_2.html">the mail bomb that they let slip through unnoticed</a>.<br /> <br /> In the case of Zundel, we can see just how far the "law" can be twisted so as to destroy an innocent man. The trouble is that much of what we know as "law" can be twisted and used to punish innocent people. Also some laws are unjust or are "victimless" and punish people for no good reason at all.<br />

[Diogenes]

Meme, you funny little good for nothing Meme, <br /> Am I the goy? <br /> Meme, you funny little Homily <br /> of a Meme <br /> I'm aiming high! <br /> Meme you've got me sad and screamy, <br /> You could free me, if you'd see me. <br /> Meme, you know I'd like to have <br /> A little freedom, Meme, bye and bye.<br /> <br /> With apologies to the late Maurice Chevalier<br />

[h.f. wolff]

W. Costen wrote:<br /> <br /> "The Holocaust under the Nazi regime was without a doubt in my mind, the worst case of mass murder in history, with people all over the world, knowing what was happening and doing little to stop it. It was not just the Jews who were victims there were many people who were selected and terminated. We owe it to their memory to reveal the whole truth, or as much as is possible."<br /> <br /> A little reading would show that the Chinese, Soviets, British, and Americans, are no slouches when it comes to mass murder. And, even accepting the Mass Media's assertion that the Germans killed 6 million, this pales compared to the achievements of the Chinese and Soviets.<br /> <br /> Furthermore, there is a very large body of evidence that throws into question as to whether the Germans murdered anyone as claimed by the MSM. In fact, there is not ONE document, not one shred of forensic evidence, that supports the claim of gassings or mass murder in any German concentration camp. All evidence was obtained through torture, threats to family, or is of the type "my friend's brother's cousin was in the camps and he heard...". Read some of the eye witness testimony of Elie Wiesel (champion Nazi Hunter!) and see what you think.<br /> <br /> The website 'sweet liberty' is a good start for getting background information. Ernst Zuendel's site is good also, regardless what you read about him. Compare the style of his writings to those of the CJC. None of the Questioners of the Holocaust EVER resort to personal attacks or threats. Compare this to the law-abiding CJC and its proponents.<br /> <br /> The point I was trying to make is that you get your information about Germany and WWII from popular publications and the MSM. We all know now how reliable that information is. Perhaps we all should question what we read about Germany's past. Diogenes has listed excellent material for questioning everything one reads about Germany, and the motivations for propagating misinformation.<br /> <br /> H.F. Wolff

[Diogenes]

http://tinyurl.com/2cdlsm<br /> <br /> [Editor's note - long URL tinyURL'd to get rid of the page widening bug - DrC]

[Calumny]

Well, if nothing else the progression of this thread is a pretty good example of why I no longer spend much time contributing to web forums.<br /> <br /> Dio, I think you've got value to offer and have found many of your contributions intriguing. I have no interest in attacking you or your thoughts or getting into any little forum games with you. If you choose to take anything that follows as some sort of attack on you and/or a result of my own inability to 'comprehend', that's your choice.<br /> <br /> You have to realize that much of what has apparently been 'new' ground for you over the past couple of years is stuff that many of us went over in various university pubs many years ago. The parts that had meaning and truth for us were assimilated into our thoughts and characters and the meaningless (for each of us) was dispensed with.<br /> <br /> So if people don't jump aboard with you all the time, it isn't necessarily that they don't have open minds, don't agree or don't comprehend what you're saying. Sometimes it's simply that they've been there, done that and wish you the best in your 'seeking' or whatever you want to call it.<br /> <br /> I'll just point out that most are polite enough to let you go carry on with your antics without jumping in with snide comments or personal attacks concerning your sometimes philosophy 101 approach. Unfortunately, you often don't seem to return the favour.<br /> <br /> People don't always express themselves in ways we'd personally prefer and I prefer a live and let live approach in this regard, rather than assuming a person's particular way of expressing their thoughts is an attack on me or my beliefs and responding, in a natural law sort of way, in kind.<br /> <br /> I know I often come across as pompous, pretentious, verbose or in a sermon on the mount manner; Marcarc can come across as patronizing, school-teachery and dismissive; you often verge on incoherence and use disdain/sarcasm/ad hominem attacks when you think people aren't 'getting you' or want to ignore what they're saying. <br /> <br /> Probably none of us intends to come across in the way we do at times, possibly excluding perhaps the incoherent aspect of some of your posts which may be intended as some sort of teaching tool to help others 'open their minds' but, we all are who we are and I prefer to try to accept people on that basis. No skin off my butt either way.<br /> <br /> By the same token, the Vive cast of characters are obviously at different points in their lives and simply out of respect, and a knowledge that you may have once stood where someone else is today or be standing where they were years ago, should be understood by one and all and appreciated.<br /> <br /> I find Sue's way of putting things to be indicative of a twenty-something ernest person with a twenty-something passion for what she believes. Again, been there, done that and respect it but, wouldn't express myself that way now or feel the need to do so.<br /> <br /> Sue didn't have to justify her decision to anyone here and I think going into the detail she does at times as to why her decision has been made ends up being somewhat counter-productive as it simply provides more fodder for those who want to pick apart her reasons.<br /> <br /> All she needed to say was your 'Zionist' posts were irrelevant in the Vive context, as in fact they are in respect of the WWII stuff, and even if not, were likely to offer more problems than any value added to the site i.e., bringing the slimeballs out of the woodwork. No censorship, no CJC...just no point.<br /> <br /> This isn't to say the posts are overall irrelevant, just that while these may be of interest on a site dedicated to conspiracies, history or the concerns of Jews as to the impact of Zionism on them, these hold no relevance to Canada or the Vive mission for the reasons Marcarc went through in detail.<br /> <br /> Articles concerning current day Israeli, U.S., etc. policy and it's potential impact on Canadians, either direct or through our nation supporting that other nation's policies when Canadians wouldn't support the same are relevant to Vive. If anyone wants to make an issue out of it, my view is too bad so sad. If we find ourselves in a position where disagreement with Canadian government direct or implicit support of another nation's policies ends up with anyone in the court on 'hate speech' charges, than we really do have problems.<br /> <br /> Insofar as censorship goes, I'd expect that if I started submitting articles on the preparation of beef dishes, most wouldn't see the light of day. Not because Vive would fear reaction from whatever Vegan lobbies might exist but, just because these are not relevant in the Vive context. These would of course be relevant to recipe forums and the like, and Vive if ever it opens a 'Dr. C's gourmet corner' section. <br /> <br /> These are just my views and I know not shared by everyone who'd like Vive to be whatever their personal agenda may be. And if the powers that be want to open the site up to free for all discussion on any conceivable topic, that's their business.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE](Marcarc) However, its a catch 22 because when those types of issues aren't covered, people think there is no point in posting those types of issues, and move on. And the forums get even more narrower.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> This is something I've thought about before, i.e., a black and white interpretation of Vive's 'mission' could narrow down the potential topics to discuss. I don't think this necessarily has to be the case as there's enough crap going on in Canada to offer opportunity for a pretty broad range of discussion however, it would certainly cut down on article submissions and forum topics.<br /> <br /> Whether that's a good or bad thing depends where you're coming from. I personally see it as a good thing as it might keep things more focussed and as such have a better chance of resulting in some sort of action at some point. But, that's just my opinion and I may be wrong. Hey, I can only read so many 'U.S. Imperialist' articles in a day, so sue me.<br /> <br /> Life is basically a web of lies, both those used by us personally for whatever reason, e.g., shielding ourselves from letting others know who we really are, 'keeping the peace' at work and home, and those used to keep us on the 'right path' by whoever is interested in keeping us on that path.<br /> <br /> It's to all our benefit to question our personal lies and those fed to us throughout our lives, and not doing so can result in the deluded complacency many on this board complain about in others. Those who are interested in freeing themselvces or others from lies will be interested in all the lies within which we operate.<br /> <br /> But, as Marcarc more or less pointed out, when someone chooses to focus in on one 'lie' in particular, you can't help but be suspicious of their motives in doing so.<br /> <br /> I haven't read everything that's gone on here. I'll just summarixe what I understand to date.<br /> <br /> 1. At some point an article from 'True Torah Jews...' was discussed indicating that some number of Jews could have been spirited out of harm's way if Zionist central, or whatever it's called, footed the bill. They didn't and the Jews in question stayed put.<br /> <br /> 2. Later there's was article from Rense purportedly written by a Jew discussing some of the above and concluding that 'Zionism' could be by reason of ommission responsible in some sense for some Jewish deaths.<br /> <br /> 3. In one of your forum posts, you later paraphrased this to 'Zionism was responsible for the Holocaust' or words having the same meaning. <br /> <br /> As previously indicated, 1. is to my mind irrelevant <b>in the context of Vive</b> and as such never needed to be here in the first place. But again, that's only my view based on the reasons I've indicated.<br /> <br /> 2. is would, I hope, be patently absurd to most readers, whether 'critical thinkers' or not, unless one applies the following reasoning:<br /> <br /> Say my wife is kidnapped and I receive a call demanding a large sum of money and threatening her death if it's not received. I refuse, either for for reasons of not having the money or not being willing to surrender to extortion or just not liking my wife...reason doesn't really matter. I contact the police. Later the kidnapper kills my wife as promised.<br /> <br /> Now, assuming this isn't some sort of Fargo situation, most, including the law, wouldn't see me as being responsible for my wife's wife death because I did not precipitate or participate in any of the kidnapper's choices/actions. I responded to one of the kidnapper's chosen actions with my inability/refusal to pay the ransom but, that's it.<br /> <br /> It was the kidnapper's choice to kidnap my wife; their choice to make a ransom demand/death threat and their choice to carry through on their threat. I made none of these choices and played no part in the ultimate decision by the kidnapper in any.<br /> <br /> I can see where in this situation some might censure me if my choice was based on dislike of my wife or disagree with my 'don't give into extortion' stance.<br /> <br /> But, to say I had any responsibility for the outcome of choices I didn't make is simply absurd.<br /> <br /> However, if 1. is in fact a 'fact' or any of the statements attributed to 'Zionists' are true, as a Jew I might have a number of questions and concerns. I'm not a Jew and have no inherent need to roght all the world's wrongs, so while I may be appalled if 1. is true, it isn't my fight, or to my mind, Vive's to be in.<br /> <br /> If I was a Jew with the above-mentioned questions/concerns, whether Vive is the appropriate forum for me to express these is another thing entirely.<br /> <br /> 3. I simply attributed to you typing quickly because I know you're smarter than that. Others could choose to see this typo as something else.<br /> <br /> What we end up with is a dispute over something that was irrelevant to Vive in the first place backed up by 'substantiation' that any 'critical thinker' could view as suspect and at least have the ability to understand might be of some concern for the non-CJC related reasons Marcarc outlined.<br /> <br /> If you want to keep portraying yourself as a champion of free speech and dodging any sort of reasoned response to anything that disagrees with your view with derisive remarks, cut and paste philosopher quotes and nursery rhymes, that's your business. But don't get into a little hissy-fit played out across the Vive forums if most end up not taking you seriously.<br /> <br /> Of those that do, people can judge h.f. wolff's comments on their own merit, i.e., 'no proof anything happened or, if it did, others have been worse'. <br /> <br /> As Marcarc indicated, what value really is there to 'Holocaust Denial'? The only possible value could be if most of us were sitting around making excuses for or turning a blind eye to Israeli policies because of a 'look what happened to the poor Jews' in WWII (or throughout history) perspective and it turned out that perhaps we were all being played for fools.<br /> <br /> As I don't think that's the case, i.e., excusing Israeli policies out of guilt, for most Vive participants, there seems to be little point for this discussion in the venue.<br /> <br /> Additionally, as a player in the 'Great Game' of global politics, which is played way beyond right or wrong as most of us would see it, there are very valid reasons for the players for U.S. support of Israel that extend way beyond Jewish and Israeli lobby groups and/or 'Zionist' conspiracies using Holocaust guilt to get their way. <br /> <br /> So, why is it so important for some to dispell this particular 'lie' as they see it? Why this particular search for historic 'truth?<br /> <br /> I say get out the old Occam's razor and see what comes out of it.<br /> <br /> Anyway, pointing out that 'Holocaust Denial' is more likely an indication of mental or emotional disturbance or simply an attempt to put a 'rationalist' face on anti-semitic beliefs doesn't make one a dupe of the CJC or braindead zombie. <br /> <br /> As to why it's not worth most people's while to put the time and effort into gathering data to 'prove' anything in this situation, the following from a 'tax protester' FAQ may say it best:<br /> <br /> [QUOTE]In this FAQ, you will read many decisions of judges who refer to the views of tax protesters as “frivolous,” “ridiculous,” “absurd,” “preposterous,” or “gibberish.” If you don’t read a lot of judicial opinions, you may not understand the full weight of what it means when a judge calls an argument “frivolous” or “ridiculous.” Perhaps an analogy will help explain the attitude of judges.<br /> <br /> Imagine a group of professional scientists who have met to discuss important issues of physics and chemistry, and then someone comes into their meeting and challenges them to prove that the earth revolves around the sun. At first, they might be unable to believe that the challenger is serious. Eventually, they might be polite enough to explain the observations and calculations which lead inevitably to the conclusion that the earth does indeed revolve around the sun. Suppose the challenger is not convinced, but insists that there is actually no evidence that the earth revolves around the sun, and that all of the calculations of the scientists are deliberately misleading. At that point, they will be jaw-droppingly astounded, and will no longer be polite, but will evict the challenger/lunatic from their meeting because he is wasting their time.<br /> <br /> That is the way judges view tax protesters. At first, they try to be civil and treat the claims as seriously as they can. However, after dismissing case after case with the same insane claims, sometimes by the same litigant, judges start pulling out the dictionary to see how many synonyms they can find for “absurd.”[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> At the end of the day, what's the point in arguing with whackos? All that comes of it is wasted time and a boost to their feelings of self-importance and/or of 'knowing something beyond the comprehension of others'. Which is why I stopped doing my point by point refutation of troll statements a couple of years ago. Well, that and my wife chewing me out for spending so much time on the computer.<br /> <br /> You can't win either way. You spend hours refuting absurd 'opinions' and at the end of the day you're still told you're wrong. You don't spend hours and you get the smug 'see, no one can prove me wrong' thing. Try viewing a few 'creationist' threads on 'conservative' sites and you'll get the gist of why responding to those with understandings or an arcane knowledge beyond the grasp of most mortals is a lose/lose exercise in futility, at least for those of us who don't like arguing purely for the sake of doing so.<br /> <br /> The only benefit from spending time to respond to inane or inaccurate facts is to possibly prevent others from being sucked in by the garbage. <br /> <br /> <i><b>Quote: (Dio) Any way Marcarc will talk about me but not to me and that to me is the sign of a coward. By his claim that he “skips over” my posts will put him in disadvantage while continuing to speculate about me and what I say on these pages.</i></b><br /> <br /> While I'm not privy to his private thoughts, I rather doubt Marcarc 'speculates' about you in any way, or anyone else on the board. I don't. Just take people as they come.<br /> <br /> He didn't semm to get anywhere trying to talk to you, so why bother? Admittedly the little 'skipping over Dio's posts' thing could have been left out, as it inadvertently gives the impression of baiting), however choosing to exit a pointless discussion after you've said what you have to say or not responding to 'bait' doesn't make one a coward.<br /> <br /> The old ego thing always gets in the way. Again, been there, done that (and still do, dammit).<br /> <br /> <i><b>Quote: (rearguard) The trouble is that much of what we know as "law" can be twisted and used to punish innocent people. Also some laws are unjust or are "victimless" and punish people for no good reason at all.</i></b><br /> <br /> True enough, and why citizens should be vigilant and aware of the laws that may impact them.<br /> <br /> And gets us back to the question of whather Canadians would have come up with the 'terror' law(s) in question if another nation didn't exert the economic influence over us it does (Geez, wouldn't want to affect the trade relationship.).<br /> <br /> Law is something that should be used as sparingly as possible as once written, it may not leave a lot of wiggle room. I think the Clerk of the Privy Counsel site has an excellent document re: the drafting of law and when and when not this is the most appropriate tool to achieve a particular goal.<br /> <br /> <i><b> (CWC)<br /> My point is rather simple. We can't know unless we can discuss and learn. We can't learn if we can't discuss. But that seems to be the point of these laws doesn't it.</b></i><br /> <br /> Catherine, if we're discussing the 318/319 of the criminal code, I'm guessing the point of the law is pretty much what I outlined in my earlier post.<br /> <br /> Great ideas can be used for evil purposes as well as good, which leads us to the fine line we tread with 'free speech'.<br /> <br /> Clearly people need to be able to voice their views about their government without fear of being dragged off in the night to a dungeon, inquisition chamber, gulag, etc., as once was the case.<br /> <br /> The only reason any of us have these freedoms today is that at some point enough people believed them desirable, and were willing to do something about it otherwise, we might be still be living in fear of being accused of treason for questioning whether in fact the emperor is wearing any clothes, as most don't seem to be.<br /> <br /> However, I rather doubt those same people felt they were fighting whatever the battles they fought so that pedophiles could publish stories about having sex with eight year olds on the web or numbskulls could ramble on about the Jew menace, and how it should be stopped.<br /> <br /> A lot of very undesirable people shield themselves behind the armor of 'free speech' solely as a means of disseminating their very undesirable behaviour and words. These are often the first to pull out the 'free speech' banner and portray themselves as champions of the cause.<br /> <br /> Like in the People vs Larry Flint where Woody said at the end something along the lines of how his Supreme Court victory was for everyone because if the (free speech) laws 'protect a scumbag like me', they'll protect all of you.<br /> <br /> Now, on the other hand, it's also true that the laws could be strong enough to protect the majority without protecting scumbags who try to use them for their own purposes.<br /> <br /> So, society is left with the choice of deciding whether the benefits of allowing people to scream 'fire' in a crowded theater outweigh the potential harm to society as a whole, or at least the theater patrons.<br /> <br /> Obviously, society has made that decision in respect of certain forms of 'expression'. But, as mentioned to rearguard, people need to be constantly vigilant in this respect as well to ensure the laws work in their best interest and are not abused and used in inappropriate situations, e.g., I disagree with a government policy and get turfed into the hoosegow or have Mr. Harper apply the cat'o'nine tails to my back.<br /> <br /> There may be some confusion in the thread because some individuals are claiming they're being accused of 'hate crimes' (which I guess they are if the B'Nai Brith form is being used) in respect of articles that may seem relatively innocuous to readers. Again, neither they, or us or the B'Nai Brith are mandated by society to determine whether a 'hate crime' has been committed or was intended, so any speculation in this regard is simply that, speculation and should not be seen as 'censorship' imposed by a law that to my knowledge has not been applied in the cases at hand.<br /> <br /> That being said, there's also nothing to stop any of us from identifying certain statements as odious, repulsive or simply stupid and not condoning them on that basis. This has nothing to do with 'brainwashing', 'mind control' or 'censorship', as some might want to lead others to believe.<br /> <br /> I stick with my earlier statement that there's no legitimate purpose for 'hate speech', either direct or masked in 'rationale' in society and nothing any of us stand to 'learn' from being around it, other than what is clearly written in the history most of us accept as at least partially true and being played out again and again today, that being that humans are capable of pretty horrendous stuff and that most of us could do the same had we been born into different circumstances.<br /> <br /> Other people will have other opinions.<br /> <br /> Guess that's what forums are for.<br /> <br /> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/biggrin.gif' alt='Big Grin'>

[whelan costen]

Thank you very much Calumny, excellent observations. I don't feel any need to rewrite history or prove anything, my concerns are for today. My primary concern and reason for responding to this thread is simple; we are going down a road of censorship in this country, and the concept that any 'official version' of events is the only version one can believe, causes me concern over recent events. I agree that vive may not be the best place to discuss 'all' issues. You cannot legislate beliefs. <br /> <br /> I have no intentions of searching for proof regarding WWII, my thoughts are only if that is an issue which people feel has been misrepresented and they have documentation to support that, then they should be able to write about it. We could certainly go through many areas of history and find fault with the official versions, and if that is someone's interest then so be it. However I was surprised to find that we are now involved with International law to deal with events from WWII. That is my primary concern. Why now? <br /> <br /> I guess I'm feeling that vive may not be the place to discuss the events of WWII, but it is the place to discuss this new law, because it sets a precedent. Europe has had this law for many years, but in North America we did not. So again I ask why now and what other official versions will we be required to believe? As I have said before, I don't have to agree with what a person says, and yes I agree that not everything people want to say is appropriate for every venue, including vive. I did not however believe the person's statement in the article on this forum was hate speech. I thought it was their opinion of events, and their personal struggle to right history. I did not think it was meant for me or others to champion. I don't intent to do so. <br /> <br /> So again its not the actual issue that causes me concern, its the 'legislation over the official version' that does. So for those who think I am going to try to prove the truth of these events one way or the other, I am not. It is not my issue. My issue is what else is coming to a court near us? What else are we not going to be allowed to investigate? What else are we going to be told 'their version of truth' and bound legally to accept? Hope that clarifies my position.

[Rural]

Calumny, a remarkable summation of this thread and the various writing styles, that for the most part mirror my own thoughts. I am constantly surprised by the tolerance shown by the “editors” given the stated purpose of the site “to protect and improve Canadian sovereignties and democracy”. We all sometimes post some “Non Canadian” news and articles which may or may not fall under that broad banner or go off on an unrelated rant. Rather than chastise Sue or the Board for an occasional edit with which we may not agree with, we should be thanking them for being so open to such a wide variety of views. They provide one of the few non partisan, largly unedited fourums to discuss the many issues both political and social that trouble our great county.<br /> Thanks again for saying so eloquently that which I could not fully express. <br />

[Diogenes]

“I have no interest in attacking you or your thoughts or getting into any little forum games with you. If you choose to take anything that follows as some sort of attack on you and/or a result of my own inability to 'comprehend', that's your choice.”<br /> <br /> Had you stopped there you would have had my respect. Instead you chose a lengthy War and Peace Incongruent contribution, all of which I could dispatch, were it worth my time to do so. It is not!<br /> <br /> One point:<br /> <br /> “Quote: (Dio) Any way Marcarc will talk about me but not to me and that to me is the sign of a coward. By his claim that he “skips over” my posts will put him in disadvantage while continuing to speculate about me and what I say on these pages.<br /> <br /> While I'm not privy to his private thoughts, I rather doubt Marcarc 'speculates' about you in any way, or anyone else on the board.”<br /> Whether you doubt or rather (than g*d only knows what the “rather would be) it or not has no bearing on the fact that is exactly what he did.<br /> <br /> Marcarc: I suspect the reason that Dio would think 'tattling' was a threat is because the CJC would act informally of the law.”<br /> “I suspect the reason” Is speculation, is it not?<br /> He he ho ho and a bottle of rheum*<br /> * http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rheum<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />

[Diogenes]

“Seems like the best thing Sue could do for the cause of Canadian sovereignty, or at least save it from embarassment, would be shut down the forums, cut off the comment functionality and go with a few writers that could produce relevant, to the Vive mission statement, articles from time to time”<br /> <br /> <br /> Although not a motion to be seconded Perhaps this is the best solution.<br /> Said in my best Jon Lovitz “Ya! That’s the ticket voice<br /> <br /> Shut down the forms! Ya That’s what to do! Close em down Ya!<br /> Cut off the comment functionality! Ya! That’s the ticket! Cut off functionality <br /> Go with a few writers that could produce relevant, to the Vive mission statement, articles from time to time! Ya Get a few writers , Very few . Ya! We can stick to the mission <br /> <br /> Lord luv a duck!<br /> Shutter down <br /> D C needs a rest!<br />

[Calumny]

Dio, I'm hoping to tour out west next year and you're one of the people I'd like to meet because I think you're an honest person and believe we'd have an interesting talk.<br /> <br /> Regardless of my current views re: the value of web forums to me, I really do feel priviledged to have (cyber world speaking) met and learned from people like you, CWC, Dr, C., Gaulois, Michou, Marcarc, Footprints, Rural, Milton, Kory, Sue, and many others with whom I've had fewer discussions. The list goes on and on.<br /> <br /> Whether I have your respect or not is your choice. If your respect is based on whether someone agrees with you or not or humours you, that's your choice as well.<br /> <br /> Personally, I'm not into the 'friends always support one another or agree with one another' way of thinking that was presented by some of our 'Canadian' business community as reason why Canadian kids should be rushing off with the U.S. to die in Iraq. <br /> <br /> I kind of saw this as a 'well, if my friend is sticking up a liquor store, guess I should be in there with him to' type of logic, which I just can't get on board with.<br /> <br /> For the sake of honesty, I'll mention a couple of things.<br /> <br /> A couple of years ago, a 'Diogenes' appeared on this board looking, I assume, for the honest person.<br /> <br /> I found their contributions of value.<br /> <br /> Later though, I started feeling like Diogenes was two different people, one of which presented some interesting contributions and the other of which preferred to deal in snide remarks, ad hominem attacks, etc., generally using these troll tactics against the then at the time purported U.S. trolls visiting the page.<br /> <br /> Around this time, I scaled back my forum activities for my previously mentioned reasons, so I have no idea of what's occurred since that time and don't particularly care.<br /> <br /> Anyone who wants to can click on both our nicknames and view all the posts we've each made to this site and form their own conclusions as to the weight either of our comments should be given.<br /> <br /> I would hope that conclusion would include the fact that I've never, to my memory, resorted to personal attacks, insults or smart ass remarks to respond to anyone's opinions on any matter (trolls aside, and okay I plead guilty but not to direct insults).<br /> <br /> Anyone who wishes to think of me as a brainwashed dupe of anything is welcome to do, after of course they've read my posts.<br /> <br /> I'm okay with letting the chips fall where they may.<br /> <br /> CWC, I have a lot of respect for you and that will never change because you're another honest person.<br /> <br /> There's no question that any concern Dio, rearguard, Marcarc, etc. may raise in respect of S.318/319 and any 'terrorism' laws that exist are valid. These laws, like any other, can be used for inappropriate purposes and in any democratic society it's the citizen's duty to make sure that these are not.<br /> <br /> You're aware of my views of 'democracy' in Canada and elsewhere, so I won't go into further details in this regard.<br /> <br /> I think we're all aware that most citizens in any so called 'democracy' in any part of the world are rather recalcitrant in their duties in this regard but, that's what we're molded to be from day one, i.e., your only democratic duty is to vote every four or so years (and study the issues, hee, hee), so it's understandable that most might not be exercising the vigilance they perhaps should.<br /> <br /> To my knowledge, the laws under discussion (and I never mentioned Zundel or know much about his case) have never been misapplied and, again, the wording is such that there are a number of safeguards built in so that ever trying to apply these against any person who is not the specific target of these laws is difficult at best and as such a matter that could not be done in secret.<br /> <br /> One of the difficulties I have with some web forum participants who are concerned about the 'law' is that it's fairly apparent that they've never taken the time to learn how it's intended to work in Canada. All of this is available on numerous government of Canada sites, many of which I've indicated in various posts. <br /> <br /> I'm not trying to be critical in this regard because it takes a considerable amount of time to learn even the basics, and some of 'representatives' don't bother, so why should anyone else? <br /> <br /> Okay, I know the answer and hopefully so does anyone else who's bothered to read this or anything else I and other Vive members have posted in the past few years. <br /> <br /> This is not to say that the 'law' is perfect, just what it is what it is and anyone interesting in changing it first needs to understand what it is and then is better off lobbying their MP or running for Parliament than wasting their time debating it's desirability on a web forum.<br /> <br /> I always find it interesting that in our various democratic societies so much has changed, and today we're told we must accept the 'global economy' and such however, our democratic processes, various 'PR' efforts aside, and legal systems seem to have gained some state of perfection some hundred or so years ago and now require little or no change whatsoever. <br /> <br /> I stand in awe.<br /> <br /> Dio, a few last comments.<br /> <br /> I'll bare my soul at this point and admit I'm not always completely honest in my comments. <br /> <br /> Sometimes I'll admit to feelings or fears I didn't actually have, or at least didn't have in the particular personal experience I'm babbling on about, just so anyone reading my ramblings knows they're not alone in being afraid, nervous, stupid, crazy, whatever and hopefully gain a bit from that.<br /> <br /> Getting back to my hair cutting experience, I had two real fears.<br /> <br /> The first was that I am getting crotchety in my old age and might demonstrate this impatience or frustration that 'people just won't get it' in whatever I said and perhaps end up alienating them in terms of stuff I really believe.<br /> <br /> The second, and as I've come to realize, my primary concern is thast people might actually listen to me, which regardless of my self-perceived failings in verbal communication has in fact in the past been the case.<br /> <br /> I mentioned to my friend 'Doc' a couple of years past, and was castigated for, that I tend to think in 'grays' rather than black and white.<br /> <br /> That too was not entirely honest because it reflected what I'd prefer and try to be, i.e., understand both sides of a particular issue.<br /> <br /> However, the truth is that in many ways I do think in black and white and as such never want to be in the position of 'leading' anyone because I'm afraid of what I'd actually do if I ever had the power to so.<br /> <br /> So, I'd prefer to be a background person whose thoughts might my be of some value to others who could do better with them than I might myself if ever given the opportunity.<br /> <br /> And, that's me in a nutshell.<br /> <br /> If that makes me gutless or a coward well, so be it. I can live with that.<br /> <br /> Still, if you ever have the time to 'dispatch' anything I've said, I hope you'll do so as I appreciate knowing where I may have gone astray and acquire knowledge I may not have.<br /> <br /> Oddly enough, the older I get and the more I learn/experience, the stupider I feel. So, always grateful for a helping hand. <br /> <br /> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/biggrin.gif' alt='Big Grin'>

[rearguard]

Calumny wrote:<br /> <br /> "Well, if nothing else the progression of this thread<br /> is a pretty good example of why I no longer spend much<br /> time contributing to web forums."<br /> <br /> Ironically (or paradoxically), here you are contributing <br /> precisely because of the reason why you don't! <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> <br /> <br /> Calumny wrote:<br /> <br /> "A lot of very undesirable people shield themselves <br /> behind the armor of 'free speech' solely as a means of <br /> disseminating their very undesirable behaviour and <br /> words. These are often the first to pull out the 'free <br /> speech' banner and portray themselves as champions of <br /> the cause."<br /> <br /> Behaviour is one thing, such as when one person is <br /> physically harmed by another, words are another thing <br /> altogether. What I thought we were talking about were <br /> words. So what if people could say all those undesirable<br /> things, would it make such a difference that otherwise <br /> normal people would become mass murderers, pedophiles, <br /> etc?<br /> <br /> The bottom line is that there's is no research or <br /> evidence that I'm aware of that backs up the need for <br /> the kind of anti-hate laws that we have.<br /> <br /> I agree that no one should have to put up with being <br /> threatened, but the hate laws that we have go well <br /> beyond being threatened into the realm of being <br /> offended, which is ridiculous. <br /> <br /> In fact, some laws end up by themselves creating <br /> feelings of being unreasonably threatened and <br /> intimidated. For example, take the threats that were <br /> being tossed at us for legitimately boycotting the last <br /> census.<br /> <br /> You can outlaw 'hate' but that won't prevent hate, <br /> instead you have to a) see where the hate is which means<br /> it cannot be hidden from view, and b) you have to find <br /> ways to resolve the reason why the hate came about.<br /> <br /> We no doubt already have the worse that society has to <br /> offer sitting in the very highest places in our <br /> government, and no laws against 'undesirable' speech <br /> have prevented that from happening.<br />

[rearguard]

[QUOTE BY= Rural] Rather than chastise Sue or the Board for an occasional edit with which we may not agree with, we should be thanking them for being so open to such a wide variety of views. They provide one of the few non partisan, largly unedited fourums to discuss the many issues both political and social that trouble our great county.<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <strong>THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH !!!!!!!</strong><br /> <br /> But I'll still come down hard on those occasional edits that I may disagree with because someone has to watch the watchers.<br />