lipualipua

No. The writer qualified that sentiment with the word "apparently", thereby mocking the justice system.

Thanks, Lee, for your response.

Hi Lee : once what is legal? Additional Comments: You have dodged my question. I will repost it here :" So, in place of putting a check mark in the box of your prefferd choice, are you going to write somewhere on the paper that " I will not vote for the ban on smoking"?" Integrity, man, integrity.

Your decision is a........non-decisioon! Let's look at context. You yourself said that if you were an MP and a bill was introduced to ban marijuana/smoking you would not vote for it. Imagine you are sitting in parliament and then your name is called for your vote or, if secrecy is important, a piece of paper is given to you to write your vote. There is a reason why the alternatives are given - to avoid ambiguity of answers by MPS. In fact this method of alternatives is given in most surveys for precisely the same reason. So, in place of putting a check mark in the box of your prefferd choice, are you going to write somewhere on the paper that " I will not vote for the ban on smoking"?

It clearly is difficult for you to make a choice between alternatives offered you - in this case "yea", "nay" or "abstain". Once again, I remind you that integrity is under discussion.

Oh!, I see. I wonder why it is so difficult for you to be positive ( in the sense of voting) instead of negative ( in the sense of not voting).

Excuse me, what is right?

Please read what you wrote earlier, quoted below: "If I was an MP and a bill was introduced to ban cigarettes........." So, you are in parliament, a bill has been introduced to ban cigarette smoking and you won't vote for that bill. I repeat : are you going to abstain or vote against it? Please understand that I am not looking to pick a fight. Integrity, ironically, is what is being discussed here. Let us say your name is called out to get your vote - a "yea" or a "no". From your post, you are not going to vote "yea". What will your vote be then? Cheers.

I am lost here - would you abstain from voting or would you vote against that bill?

I am preparing for work and so I will give my response when I come back in the evening.

Craig, some people's thought processes are difficult to fathom and kmwq, in this particular instance, is just one example. After Gabriella had diplomatically and skillfully shut down the thread, here comes kmwq, AFTER 11 DAYS, to reopen it and complain that he hates that same thread! If kmwq was rational when he reopened that thread, then he clearly had an ulterior motive. Seldom have I come across such irrational thought but then the person with an ulterior motive never lets an opportunity escape them to vent their thoughts even if they will sound infantile in the process. Cheers.

Still, you not only read it but responded to it.

Miss/Sir : I will use your own number of 100% to show how easily numbers can be used to deceive the unwary and so cause these to behave in some desired way. Let us suppose that an escort has seen fifty clients of whom one is a black man and that it is only this black man who has asked to be her pimp. Then, we can make the statement that 100% of the black men she has seen want to be her pimp: ( 1/1 x 100 = 100%) You see how meaningless the figure of 100% is? It is so because it is based on only 1 black man ( not even considering the number of escorts). You employed the number 100% to strenghthen your argument and so make the maximum impact on cerbites. Your analysis is no different from a newspaper headline that screams that gun-related homicides has increased 100% over two successive years. Such a headline is needlessly alarmist and I bet that the number of people who are alarmed on seeing it will drop sharply when they actually read the accompanying article and see the raw numbers of 1 and 2 deaths for those years in a city of population half a million. Be careful in your statistical analysis; always make sure that they rest on a solid foundation before passing the conclusions you draw from them as fact. Regards.

England did well. Its progress to the round of 16 depends on its match with Uruguay. Very difficult for me to predict which team will take the cup as the teams are now virtually at the same level and so victory or defeat depends on a team making mistakes.

To portrat all black men, unjustifiably, in a negative light. Why communicate something you have heard, not something you directly experienced, as truth especially when that "truth" has the potential to harm people?

Yeah, right! The "dozens" of SPs all said only black guys are dirty and negotiate. Man, you are trying too hard to push your agenda.

Why do you disgrace real men by your inability to maintain and sustain normal man-woman relationships like the rest of us real men? Why do you keep on forcing the drug-addicted, psychologically-unstable of our womenfolk to engage in sex with you for what these women see as a desirable benefit? Sane women never engage in sex for any benefit other than sexual pleasure. Which of you can compare to us upstanding and honourable citizens of society? You are less than human and so must conform to what real men say â?? that you have no right to engage in sexual relations with a consenting female. In our world of real men, we have only consensual sex with females. Any thought that we real men pressure vulnerable females for sex as in when we wield the power to offer them jobs, promotions, or other benefits, or that the women seduce us real men into marrying them for the benefit of economic security are just delusions . We have sex because the women want it, with no strings attached. You are all desperadoes fully deserving of the label perverts. Hey wait a second! Perhaps we so-called real men are the delusional ones! On careful thought, I realize that humans are motivated by their values, temporary or permanent, doing what they do in pursuit of what they hold dear at some point in their lives. And this is where problems arise for if no just laws are broken, whose value is more valid than anotherâ??s? Take marriage for instance. People marry because they are attracted to what they perceive as desirable qualities in their partner â?? economic security, good looks, great friendship, scholarship, honesty, race, religion, ethnicity etc etc.. If Jane wants to marry a wealthy man for his money, is she less of a woman than Jill who marries a man for his good looks? If Anne wants to engage in sex for money is she any less human than Viola who sleeps with her boss to get benefits ( Jeff Skilling of Enron fame or infamy promoted her lover secretary to a position paying over 600K a year)? Or is Anne any less human than Cindy who engages in â??free sexâ? with many men simply because she enjoys and values sex for its own sake? So, for some unfathomable reason, where money is the value, people pass unfavourable judgments on those who engage in sex for it or marry for it. The big question is WHY?. Until this question is answered satisfactorily, I must admit that we so-called real men are the real perverts â?? we have perverted the truth about sexual relations among humans.

Need I add more? Cheers.

all-in originally wrote : Pretty sure everyone but you understand my posts perfectly. Waterat wrote in response to all-in: Everyone - yet another generalization! Please don't be sure. I don't Aaaaaah Waterat, too funny! Poor all-in is fond of "terminological inexactitude", as Winston Churchill would say. Additional Comments: Another aaaaaaaaah moment! Powerful irony, cinelli.

A perspicacious observation. Cheers.

I suspect you have an agenda. You are now shifting your position and even then you are still trying to justify it. I will repeat what I wrote in response to an earlier post of yours: ".... next time reflect over what you have heard before communicating it to others. Furthermore in communicating it, do so properly in order to leave no doubt as to what is meant."

Who are USUALLY up to no good? Additional Comments: There are lies, damned lies and statistics. With your mode of reasoning.......

Then , next time reflect over what you have heard before communicating it to others. Furthermore in communicating it, do so properly in order to leave no doubt as to what is meant.

Exactly the reason why he must not generalise! If you must generalise, make sure you have a good sample size and diversity to base it on. Really Statistics 101.

I bet you have no knowledge of statistics or if you do, then you rather must "use logic". You "clearly" did not mean what you profess.