| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The Cube
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 5:26 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
..
Last edited by The Cube on Sun Nov 30, 2008 5:41 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
VanIslander
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: Geoje, Hadong, Tongyeong,... now in a small coastal island town outside Gyeongsangnamdo!
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bignate wrote: |
| VanIslander wrote: |
| I wasn't, and shocked the heck out of those who toque when I outscored them on a midterm |
Hey just because someone wears a wool hat doesn't make them a stoner, they just want to keep their head warm. That midterm wasn't a spelling test was it? |
No, it wasn't. Though the faux pas was apt. I'm more aware of Spanish than drug talk. I thought "toke up" was spelt "toque", the Spanish alternative of "momento" or second, as in: it takes only a second (a puff does).
And, yes, I was well aware of the other meaning of "toque", as used mostly in Canada. That was an attempt at double entendre. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| VanIslander wrote: |
| bignate wrote: |
| VanIslander wrote: |
| I wasn't, and shocked the heck out of those who toque when I outscored them on a midterm |
Hey just because someone wears a wool hat doesn't make them a stoner, they just want to keep their head warm. That midterm wasn't a spelling test was it? |
No, it wasn't. Though the faux pas was apt. I'm more aware of Spanish than drug talk. I thought "toke up" was spelt "toque", the Spanish alternative of "momento" or second, as in: it takes only a second (a puff does).
And, yes, I was well aware of the other meaning of "toque", as used mostly in Canada. That was an attempt at double entendre. |
  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yu_Bum_suk
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ersatzprofessor wrote: |
You can be sure that Americans care just as much about the deaths of their fellow citizens as any other people in the world.
|
I beg to disagree. America is in a situation where violent crime is at a level that they cannot devote as much time to caring about lost life as a result. Internationally, it has put itself in a situaltion where it cannot afford to care as much about the loss of its servicemen; if it was as concerned about them as Canadians are about our soldiers it couldn't continue doing what it is doing. I don't feel bad being somewhat smugly proud about this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 8:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Cube wrote: |
| Pyongshin Sangja wrote: |
| I still take the police spokesman at his word. |
He has a reason to lie. People will ask questions as to why the police had so few officers with light arms to raid a major growth op. |
Have you even been following the story, you fiucking idiot?
Do you know where this took place?
They practically had the whole fucking detachment in the operation just to serve a warrant on the repossession of a pickup.
Do you think every detachment has an ERT?
"Light Arms"?
They're a rural contract-policing detachment for christ's sake.
Major Grow op? By whose standards?
You seem to be making an awful lot of assumptions in order to cast doubt on the veracity of a statement about body armour. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yu_Bum_suk wrote: |
| ersatzprofessor wrote: |
You can be sure that Americans care just as much about the deaths of their fellow citizens as any other people in the world.
|
I beg to disagree. America is in a situation where violent crime is at a level that they cannot devote as much time to caring about lost life as a result. Internationally, it has put itself in a situaltion where it cannot afford to care as much about the loss of its servicemen; if it was as concerned about them as Canadians are about our soldiers it couldn't continue doing what it is doing. I don't feel bad being somewhat smugly proud about this. |
You should. Maybe one day you'll realize what a fucking stupid statement you've just made, but I won't be holding my breath for it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blind Willie
Joined: 05 May 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Cube wrote: |
You are a very ignorant man. |
You're just noticing this now? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sleepy in Seoul
Joined: 15 May 2004
Location: Going in ever decreasing circles until I eventually disappear up my own fundament - in NZ
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The body armour that the Queensland Police used to (and probably still) have had a ceramic plate in the centre of the chest area. The ceramic plate was designed to stop the impact of a high-powered round, but on impact of that round, the plate would break. You would then just have to hope that you weren't shot again the in the same place. There is only one plate in the front and no plate in the back, so that a round does not enter through the side, between the front and back sections of the bulletproof vest, and ricochet back and forth between the two plates. Tough luck if you get shot in the back with a high-powered round.
I had a friend who was murdered at work. I have other friends who have been shot at work. I feel very sad for the families involved. This whole affair is tragic, but bringing it down to an argument about the legalisation of marijuana is pathetic. From what I have read in the articles, it would appear that this murderous b*stard would have been involved in anything that brought him into conflict with the law. He had a history of sexual assault, assault with a weapon, ggravated assault, and an assortment of firearms offences. One of the articles stated that he had a hatred of RCMP officers. It would appear that he didn't kill the Police Officers because of drugs. It seems he killed them because he was a dangerous lunatic armed with a gun and irrational rage. Don't use this tragedy as an excuse to air your complaints about "unjust" laws. Marijuana is illegal? Get over it or change the law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yu_Bum_suk
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| Yu_Bum_suk wrote: |
| ersatzprofessor wrote: |
You can be sure that Americans care just as much about the deaths of their fellow citizens as any other people in the world.
|
I beg to disagree. America is in a situation where violent crime is at a level that they cannot devote as much time to caring about lost life as a result. Internationally, it has put itself in a situaltion where it cannot afford to care as much about the loss of its servicemen; if it was as concerned about them as Canadians are about our soldiers it couldn't continue doing what it is doing. I don't feel bad being somewhat smugly proud about this. |
You should. Maybe one day you'll realize what a *beep* stupid statement you've just made, but I won't be holding my breath for it. |
By luck and by not making so many stupid decisions about whom to engage in war, and by virtue of the fact that Canada is a much smaller nation than the US, the death of Canadians in the line of duty carries far greater national significance than it does for Americans. This is just plain obvious. As E-prof pointed out, I was perhaps stupid to take some provocative Yank's canuck-bait, but this is the honest response to someone who wants to make this a matter of national comparison. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 12:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| It seems he killed them because he was a dangerous lunatic armed with a gun and irrational rage. Don't use this tragedy as an excuse to air your complaints about "unjust" laws. Marijuana is illegal? Get over it or change the law. |
Thank you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 1:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yu_Bum_suk wrote: |
| As E-prof pointed out, I was perhaps stupid to take some provocative Yank's canuck-bait, but this is the honest response to someone who wants to make this a matter of national comparison. |
From here it just looks like you sank to their level. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yu_Bum_suk
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 1:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| Yu_Bum_suk wrote: |
| As E-prof pointed out, I was perhaps stupid to take some provocative Yank's canuck-bait, but this is the honest response to someone who wants to make this a matter of national comparison. |
From here it just looks like you sank to their level. |
This was the original dialogue:
"'And if someone posted a similar story about 4 cops getting killed in the States on this board, it would take less than an hour for a Canadian to opine on the violent nature of the states, and how these things just don't happen in the clean and safe streets of Canada.'
How many cops die in the line of duty in the States every day? 4? If this happened in th eStates I don't think it would have nearly as much national impact, and we wouldn't be discussing it.
Remember the huge national impact when one Canadian submariner died in the line of duty a few months ago. How many American GIs died in Iraq today?
Canada's 1/10 the size, to be sure, but there is a different attitude about the price of life re: national service."
He tried to derail the thread with pointless sarcasm, and I responded with the painful truth. Pointless to an extent, I know, but no more so than this whole board. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 1:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
A numbers game, and a comparison of how much better one is over the other.
Sank to their level.
Pointless? Not much argument from here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yu_Bum_suk
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
A numbers game, and a comparison of how much better one is over the other.
Sank to their level.
Pointless? Not much argument from here. |
Well, if one wants to argue about which nation has a lower value for the life of its men in uniform (not an entirely invalid argument) I think it's not too difficult an argument to make. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 4:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yu Bum Suk wrote:
| Quote: |
| Well, if one wants to argue about which nation has a lower value for the life of its men in uniform (not an entirely invalid argument) I think it's not too difficult an argument to make. |
Your argument is an interesting one. Just out of curiosity though:
Would you say that between Sept. 1939 and Dec. 1941, Canadians had a lower regard for the life of their men in uniform than the Americans did? Going by the criteria that you've established, I'd imagine the answer to be yes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
