Kubrickfan

So she did overreact, but that's not the point. You can be as rightfully indignant as you want , but still end up with your number published and potentially having to get a new mobile and a new identity. What would you rather deal with? One approach gives everyone the sense that you are a gentleman and want to be equitable, the other is you want to quibble over the facts of a meeting you scheduled. Which approach puts you in a better light? I'd rather throw some money at the issue ... Or at least offer to do that.

Once you have a firm appointment, best bet in my opinion is to figure out a way to make it up to the lady financially. In your situation (every one is different) I would have offered her half the fee in an emailed gift certificate or some other way to show her you are seriously sorry. Once you have a firm appointment, especially one that is coming up shortly, you have "crossed the rubicon," so to speak, and the onus is on you, regardless of the reason, and regardless of whether it was only confirmed five minutes before. Also by doing that you are likely to keep her interest and keep you out of potential trouble.

+ 1 as shows respect for the person from whom you are requesting a reference. Additional Comments: That's funny. Kinda like us posting a recommendation for "that SP ... you know ... the one that took her clothes off."

CK -- it's been a long time, but I wouldn't want to let this pass by without saying a massive thanks for everything ... You're a true gentleman. Hope to see you on the boards and hopefully we will have that dinner we talked about a long time ago if I ever get back to Ottawa. Best, KF

P411. 'nuff said

Agree with Nicolette and others ... Each board has a somewhat unique "brand" and people are driven to the site based on the brand. I don't really hobby anymore, but I always checked out both. You can probably, across those brands, do some cross marketing or whatever. And allow linking to other sites if that is shut down? But don't make them the same. And I don't see anything at issue with lyla/cerb that isn't addressed by the other main web site and others tools available.

Godwin's Law, also known as "reductio ad Hitlerum" postulates that any online discussion, if it goes on long enough, will ultimately end up with comparisons to Hitler and Naxism as a basis to invalidate whatever is being criticized. This is yet another Trump discussion that got there really fast. Respectfully, it's not a helpful argument for anything. As I understand the executive order that everyone is losing their minds about, it put a temporary stay in place for 90 days while a program is implemented for improved vetting for individuals arriving from those countries. Of the over 300,000 people traveling to the U.S. every day, apparently somewhere (as reported by the U.S. media) around 300 individuals where put in a very difficult situation as they were in transit when it happened, and that should not have happened. But that is being addressed now. It affects people arriving from seven countries; over 40 countries that are predominantly Muslim are not affected. Trump is (a rarity for politicians) doing exactly what he said he would do.

Good to see this thread is still active almost six years after it was started! She is a wonderful lady!

What exactly is wrong with the US Constitution? It's the cornerstone document, together with the Declaration of Independence, of the greatest society that the world has ever known. Those documents, together with the republic they were written for, has done more to promote liberty and freedom, than most other nations in the world combined. It's intended to be a static document as its intended to be considered to be a compact, or "contract," between the state and its citizens so that it can be relied upon. When you have a "living" constitution (whatever the hell that means), you have a bull crap situation where the law only means what the unelected, old fart, wannabe legislator judge wants it to mean. Blecch.... As Alexander Hamilton said allowing judges to create law is a really bad idea as it substitutes their will for the legislature. On the other hand, the highest duty of a judge is to consider the validity of any law as to whether it is constitutional. And I don't think any judge on the U.S. Supreme Court thinks that they can somehow interpret that right to bear arms to take that right away from citizens. There is some debate over whether the Second Amendment applies to State, versus federal, laws, but that's about it. It's there, right after the First Amendment, for a damn good reason that has very little to do with hunting, target shooting, etc. That reason is to prevent the government from so controlling its citizens that, should the government become "destructive" as provided in the Declaration of Independence, the citizens cannot bear arms, as part of a militia or otherwise, to re-claim their liberty. So, respectfully, I don't have much patience, nor do most Americans, for people who want to diminish that right. Gun violence is certainly a problem but that doesn't require the Constitution be amended.

It was reported pretty regularly in the US in the more conservative news outlets at least for a few weeks before the vote because the polling was closer than originally thought, especially with David Cameron being against it. Cost him his job. Another intriguing aspect is that the Brexit vote was consistently under-polled in the UK. If I recall, even Nigel Farage gave a statement earlier on the day of the vote implying it was going to be voted down. If that's the same sort of sentiment that will drive people to the polls to vote for Trump, there could be some surprises in some states on the day of the election.

I'll add one additional thought ... not so much on the pros and cons of Clinton versus Trump, but on the bigger picture of whats going on. It may have been mentioned elsewhere in this string. I think the rise of Trump, Brexit, and similar Brexit-like votes expected in other countries in the EU in the near future, represent a change in perception the advantages of globalism and at least some aspects of diversity as being always good all the time. i don't think that's a bad thing either ... the more opportunities that individual countries have to demonstrate the superioriority of certain forms of economic relations over others (for instance, the advantages of capitalism and mostly free markets over socialism, communism, dictatorships, etc.) will lead overall to a more free world.

Brad -- Understood and I'm not trying to convince anyone here to change their opinion. But my perspective on the issue is very different at this point from many of the people on this string. My view is that politics in the US are completely screwed up and have been for a long time and its causing the country to stagnate and divide. The only way to deal with that problem is to "shift the paradigm" ... to bring in someone entirely new that is not tied to the existing system and the existing political class. I'm focused less on the issues that the fact that we (I live in the US) need a true Statesman (ahem ... Statesperson). I think the last really effective "Statesman" President was Ronald Reagan. He had a bedrock of principles (modern conservatism), a moral compass (a sense of right and wrong), a vision (a "shining city on the hill"), and the ability to achieve consensus around that vision (I think he dealt with a democratic Congress for most of the time he was President). I think Trump is developing a similar set of principles and already has demonstrated the ability to effectively lead other people at his companies, albeit much more coarsely in messaging to date. Im not equating Reagan and Trump, but I see parallels to how they are delivering their message. The only specific substantive point I will address is the judiciary. I work in the legal profession, and as a firm believer in Alexander Hamilton's Federalist No. 78, I want justices of the Supreme Court exercising judgement of the law, not will over the law. In short, I don't want a nine unelected old fart justices who believe in some "living constitution" or bullcrap like that. Trump is on the record stating he won't do that; Clinton will. Anyways, enough said.

I live in the US and I am a citizen (and dearly miss my trips to Ottawa which was the basis for me joining this board many years ago). I think comparisons to Hitler, Nazis, etc., rarely convince anyone of anything. I think a more apt analogy to what Trump does on occasion, as do many politicians of both parties do on a daily basis (Obama is an expert when he's not busy talking about himself) is the "straw horse" argument: where one asserts a familiar, but weaker, factually incorrect version of an argument their opponent is making, and then they easily tear down that argument (hence the reference to "straw horse"). They all do it, but its rare for a Republican to go on the offensive the way Trump is ... he is shifting paradigms which is mostly what has so many people worked up. And I do not think that is a bad thing. Sorry but no Nazis running for Prez. I think the reporting on Trump is grossly exaggerated because of the mostly liberal press in the United States. i think he is a respected leader in the business world and frankly anyone who watched even a few episodes of The Apprentice will recognize that many of the points he raises in that show are truisms in business and life. I respectfully assert that's not a bad thing and many people will identify with those. I think its fair to say his public persona does not reflect the person he is and that he is very much a people person. Also he is an effective communicator whether you like his message or not. I think the debates in the fall will be very important for both Trump and Clinton.

Reductio ad Hitlerum. See Godwin's Law, which I think is the likelihood of any political discussion at some point referencing Hitler or Nazism approaches 100% the longer it goes. This one got there really fast! (Smile)

Respectfully, as something of a Churchill fan, although this is commonly attributed to him, Churchill never said that and generally held a very positive impression of "the little man, walking into a little booth, with a little pencil, making a little mark" or something to that effect. And he did say, or at least agreed with a remark he attributed to someone else that democracy is the worst form of Government except for the others that have been tried from time to time (smile). I avoid the Internet quote finders (except the dirty quotes by Confucius ... Smile). And I think people are getting too worked up about Trump. If he wins, he's going to do a great job and start to change the political landscape in the US in a way that is long overdue.