30 January 2006

most of this country would happily boil their grandmothers for glue in exchange for another gold medal

Olympic hockey that is.

That post title is not mine. It belongs to Jonathan Gatehouse of Macleans.

That article is all about Bertuzzi. Again. Seriously, I'm weary of hearing yet another article praising or slamming Bertuzzi. And this is the only reason why: Heatley.

Perhaps if Bertuzzi had been out drunk joyriding and slammed the car into a tree while driving at least three times the speed limit, then no one would care that he killed someone.

Bertuzzi punched a guy in the fair play of a violent game. Moore is a pussy. He should shut his whiny little trap and suck it up. That's hockey.

Heatley should be in prison. He killed another person. He killed his friend. All because he was out stunting in his car.

Now what really does confuse me here is this: if a person takes a gun and shoots someone, it's called murder. But if the thing doing the killing is not a bullet projected from a gun, but rather a car, then if there is even a charge, it's at most manslaughter, which isn't even really killing someone. And you'll likely not get any punishment at all, aside from another lucrative NHL contract.

But what infuriates me is this two or three tiered system of celebrity justice.

Gatehouse makes a good point to mention that the Rocket, Messier, and Clarke were are far more "violent" on and off the ice than Bertuzzi has been, or probably will be.

No one was rioting in Vancouver when Bertuzzi was suspended.

26 January 2006

don't cry over spilt milk

At the end of the nesquick, I simply pour milk directly into the bottle, shake, and pour into a glass. Then typically I drink the chocolate milk from the glass.

But not on Saturday.

Somehow, the glass just snapped off at the base, and when I attempted to pick it up, the glass broke, and the milk went everywhere! Splashed all over the counter, the cupboards, the floor, even my feet!

Later that day, I was walking down 4 Avenue S, and though I'd been planning on doing it for several years and never actually did it, I finally stopped to take a photo of the sad sad state of the Paramount theatre marquis. Once purchased from the original independent owner in the 50's or 70's or whenever, Famous Players never spent a dime on anything for this theatre, including buying new bulbs for the marquis. Then Famous Players went bankrupt or whatever and was bought out by Cineplex. But some of the locations were anti-competitive, so Empire Theatres bought those screens.

I wonder, does Empire know how disgusting this place is?

23 January 2006

Prime Minister Stephen Harper

I have no problem with the Conservatives alligning with the Bloc to get things done. Gilles Duceppe has good ideas on Ottawa - Provincial relations. Scrap the separatist stuff, and the Bloc is good news.

So long, fare well, auf wiedersehen, good night! Anne McLellan is cut.

Unfortunately, none of my other Christmas Election wishes came true. So I'm not going to even talk about that.

But what continues to puzzle me is Ontario and specifically Toronto. What the fuck are you voting Liberal for? Crime. Guns. Government waste. Stealing money. Crime. Stealing.

Is there any wonder why Ford announces lay-offs in Ontario on election day? Because you vote Liberal.

The Liberals are only out to get themselves better. There is nothing there for you! You won't have better jobs (or jobs at all) with a Liberal MP. Look at your province! Look what's happening to it! Crime. Guns. Unemployment.

Fucking pathetic. That's all I can say.

Have words with me. I invite you to come to Alberta and pick a fight. I'll knock your sorry red ass into the dirt.

yet another microsoft flaw

I work for a large national company with offices and departments in most major and minor cities across Canada.

Office XP. Word. Buried deep within some settings tools options preferences sub pop up window is a tiny little check box, which by default is checked. This check box instructs Word to save backup files of the currently open document.

It became apparent at our tiny satellite office that this "feature" was commanding a large amount of file server space, which was not only unnecessary, but also triple and quadruple redundant, as the files are already backed up to an off site location.

Our IT guru instructed is to do a search for all the .wbk files and then delete them, after disabling the "feature".

Quite straight forward. However, one person at my office did a My Computer search instead of a My Documents search.

My Computer includes several (sometimes many) network drives. One of these mapped drives is available to every single user in the entire company.

The search done by the employee at my office of My Computer discovered hundreds of .wbk files on the network drive. Files of an obviously sensitive and confidential nature.

Sure, the files were only potentially available to people in the company and no where else, but the flaw of yet another Microsoft product is obvious: saving copies of files without prompting the user for a location or even permission.

Funny, yet potentially dangerous.

The problem has been resolved.

Get a real computer and a real OS and real applications that work: Apple.ca

21 January 2006

6 degrees of separation

Six degrees of separation is the theory that no one person is further from any other person by more than five intermediaries.

I have had numerous, numerous, occasions at which I was only one or two degrees separated from a person. Some of the better separations are:
  • I picked up a hitch hiker in Rosetown SK, on his way to Saskatoon. During our conversation, we discover that he grew up in the same town as a girl with whom I was currently attending the same college in another town. Their families are still friends (up to that meeting).

  • Riding a greyhound from Lethbridge to Regina, in the middle of the night somewhere between a wheat field and a barley field, I wake up and overhear a conversation at the back of the bus. Being bored and intrigued and awake, I go back and join the conversation. One of the two guys is a college roommate of my previous housemate from Canmore, four years prior to this bus ride.

  • In the early days of the internet (c.1996), I meet a girl online through some message board. We begin an email friendship. She moves UAE to work in a hospital, I end up meeting her parents in Wisconsin through an arranged stopover on my second drive west. Finally at college in Nipawin, one of my classmate's aunt in Regina went to college with both of the parents from Wisconsin. Somehow, I got a care package of cookies from Regina out of this.

The front page of the Lethbridge Herald yesterday was a photo of the Empress Theatre in Fort Macleod. Brokeback Mountain was being screened for one night only on Thursday, and it was a sell out crowd. Brokeback Mountain was filmed in and around Fort Macleod. The apartment over the laundry mat is on the main street, and when Enis looks out the window for Jack's truck, the Fort is in the background. There is even one scene of a bit of a hill/mountain at a steep pitch with the sheep being herded across, and I've definitely been there; last summer while mountain biking, it's a popular off-road area for backcountry recreationists, nestled in the Castle River valley.

Brokeback Mountain is a story about love. Problem is, many people get hung up that it's two men. One should understand it as two people.

Alberta, and the eastern Rockies in the US, were mostly settled by Mormons and Christians who predominantly became cowboys. For the fundamentalist, this film is quite the in-your-face experience, exposing not that which is unknown, but rather that which is feared. If I have heard any comment on the film and its story, the comment is rooted in a deep homo-erotica-fantasy-phobia. It's no secret that part of the nature of humanity is to point out the perceived faults, failures, or disliked character traits of others that are actually represented in oneself. Bluntly stated: if you're apprehensive, or even vocally abusive towards this film, it's likely that you would actually enjoy seeing two guys make out and have sex. And enjoying the sight on-screen is what scares you more than the act itself. Somehow, for the masses, there is nothing wrong with a man having sex with a woman, or even at times, a woman having sex with a woman. But as soon as it's two men, it's disgusting. If you hold this attitude, you are a hypocrite.

Because of the content of this film, I've heard and read quite a bit about people banning or boycotting it, merely because it's the "gay cowboy movie". It blows me away that in our society, people can still be so rude and ignorant!!!

I liked this film because it was something out of the ordinary. And I believe that Ang Lee is a brilliant director; he makes films with real honest-to-goodness acting. It's extremely refreshing amidst all the crap that Hollywood typically pumps out.

Another film which has quite a bit of unnecessary negative hype surrounding it right now, and which many different groups are attempting to ban or boycott, is Karla. This is the story of Karla Homolka.
(In case you've been living under a rock for the past 18 years, go read this CBC indepth article on Bernardo.)

I will see this film, even if it means driving to Calgary.

This criminal murder-mystery story is likely the biggest (and dare I say best) to dominate the minds of Canadians, and Americans too, in the past several decades. Sure, there are horrific stories of other serial killers, both fictitious and not, which have dominated media and film screens in the past 15 years, but this is by far the best, because it is real and it is appalling.

Aside from the early years of the Scarborough Rapist, the Tammy and St. Catherines murders are most intriguing because it wasn't just Paul, it was Karla too. No one really knows what went on. And the details of this story have been kept a secret for so long.

I want to know why the defense lawyer for the case hid a box of video tapes that would have easily convicted Homolka to life in prison, releasing the tapes AFTER the Crown made a plea deal with Homolka to get off with 12 years and manslaughter, which was really a slap on the wrist for her and slap in the face for justice in Canada.

I want to know what was going on in Karla's mind. Why was she so enamoured with Paul that she was willing to have an intimate relationship with a man who was at the same time raping strangers in Scarborough? Why didn't she turn him in? Why did she continue to help him carry out his sexual dominance fantasies? Were these Karla's fantasies too? How is it possible that she would drug, rape, and kill her own sister along with Paul, then cover up the truth to protect him?

There are several circumstances with the trial of this case which, in my opinion, were botched. Being that it is such a high profile story, one filled with much uncertainty and mystery, I believe that it is within the rights of the public to know what exactly happened.

But the other reason, the most compelling reason for me to see this film is because I am not far removed from its reality.

I am (potentially) one degree separated from Paul Bernardo.

To substantiate claim, I must admit to the following: I was a run-away/throw-away youth. I ventured to Toronto in the spring of 1990 (living in the city until the late winter of 1991). Eventually living downtown with no other options and nowhere to go, if not for the work of Covenant House, I would literally have been "on the street".

Covenant House is a shelter, and at the time had two facilities, one short term and one long term. After I was transferred to the long term house (at Gerrard and Sherbourne; they've since moved), I met a girl one afternoon. I can't remember the fake-name she gave me, but I do remember our walk in the park and sitting on the front steps of Covenant House as she told me her story.

Having been admitted to hospital quite frequently while I was young, related to illness, I had seen many things in the hospital which most people don't see. I became accustomed to, or not bothered by, physical abnormalities. So it was on this sunny Sunday afternoon that I met this girl outside Covenant House where we were both current residents that I was able to carry on a conversation without staring in shock or disgust at her physical appearance. And I think that action on my part alone is what allowed our conversation to continue and for the girl to eventually open up and tell me her story.

The girl was from Etobicoke where she lived with her parents. For some reason which I cannot now remember, she was in Scarborough on Saturday afternoon. Eventually, she was taken captive, beaten, raped, and left in some bushes near a parking lot, where she was unconscious until found on Sunday morning. She was at Covenant House because she wanted to protect her parents from having to find out about what happened to her; she was there just long enough to let the bruises heal. She told me that the police were quite certain that it was the Scarborough Rapist who had attacked her.

As I sit here typing and remembering this story from so long ago, I'm actually having a difficult time of it all. I've never fully shared this second hand experience with anyone since I heard it. Although this post and the way I've written would suggest a high level of objectivity, believe me that I'm actually quite emotional right now.

The two things which still strike me as completely unreal about this story are these:
  1. The girl was grateful and thankful for life. She focused her attention on the positive, her loving family which was waiting for her, that she was alive and free, that the person who found her did the right thing and called police, that she had a place to go (Covenant House) to sort it all out before going home.

  2. She was not bitter. Though not specifically stated, she had forgiven her attacker, because it was the only way for her to move on from this potentially ultimate damaging life experience.

To this day, that Sunday afternoon haunts my memories whenever I hear or read about the Bernardo/Homolka story.

19 January 2006

Liberal concedes defeat!

Liberal concedes defeat! Then puts support behind Conservative candidate.

The tide is changing. And it's about time.

There is not enough space on the internet to have enough web sites devoted to disclosing the extent to which the Liberals are vile and evil and ultimately bad. Worse than satan.

And this is my wish list:

  1. The Liberals must be taught a lesson.

The seats which ought to be lost (and probably could be lost, considering the polls):

  • Paul Martin

  • Belinda Stronach

  • Scott Brison

  • Ralph Goodale

  • Anne McLellan

  • Ujjal Dosanjh

With those people gone, I would be satisfied.

What would be even better would be for Belinda and Scott to come out and announce that they're in a relationship.

Monday couldn't come sooner. (We are after all bound by time.)

17 January 2006

thoughts & observations on class today (philosophy 1000a)

The following is the content of the email which I sent to the instructor.


As I understand it, Anselm's ontological argument can be explained, or rather reduced, to the following, as discussed in class today:

p is some "thing"
q is all other things or any other thing which is not p

p is greater than q

even if p is only in thought, then it is in fact not p, because p is greater than q, which inherently includes not p.

(the thought of p cannot be p, because p, the actual thing, would still be greater than the thought of p, therefore requiring that the thought of p actually be made q.)

the thought of p is not p, and therefore is q.

p is greater than q.

Now, if Anselm's argument were presented as such, provided that I've reduced it accurately (though I do not claim to have done so to perfection), I believe that it would be a much more believable argument.

But as soon as the variable 'p' is replaced with the word 'God', it seems as though it's not as easy to swallow.

Today in class I observed a lot of reaction to Anselm's argument, which, at this point, in the context of this class, is the ONLY philosophy read or studied on behalf of the students in the class. Therefore as of yet, no other argument has been presented. And because the sole philosophical argument is about God and Its existence, and everyone has an opinion on this, it was difficult to leave subjectivity at the door.

Anselm's argument, or at least the portion of his argument that we were discussing, only relates to the existence of God, that thing which is greater than all other things.

Yet, I heard the following words: pain, pleasure, good, evil, great.

These, and our perceptions of such, are irrelevant to the discussion. God exists or God does not exist. Before getting into those things mentioned above, the God exists/not exists needs to be understood first, perchance even answered. (But by being answered, I mean merely assumed: for sake of discussion.)

Now, for sake of discussion, I would like to briefly comment on something that further bothered me in the discussion today (other than what I've already typed): the use, or rather misuse, of the word "great".

Near the end of the class time, either started by yourself, or a comment from a student, the word "great" was substituted into Anselm's 'something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought', and the conversation swung from the quantitative "greater-than" to the qualitative "great". Is this not one of the rules of bad philosophy? Keeping the same or similar word, but changing the meaning? "Greater-than" and "great" are two completely different things, especially when discussing the something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought.

For Anselm's argument, as I understand it, and as it is related to our discussion today, was not supposed to be about the nature or character of God, but merely that God exists, if It exists at all.

Furthermore, the two word pairs that also came up, as noted above, being pain-pleasure and good-evil can hardly be discussed without first being defined. But in this lies a huge problem. If only contemplating good-evil, and only thinking of it in terms of God, then whose definition are we to use? But first, is this thing, this God, mono or plural? Nevertheless, let's assume, for the sake of this email, that we're discussing the good-evil of a mono-God.

Now, to use a likely poor example, which could easily be torn apart, I would like to pose a situation of good-evil in the following specific context: the adulterous woman.

First, consider Christianity (not how the church interprets, but what the Gospels state), in the case of the woman who was caught in the act of adultery (what did that look like anyway?). According to John 8:1-11, a woman was caught in the act of adultery and brought before Jesus. The Law demanded that she be put to death. Jesus' response was first to write something on the ground, then to ask of the people who wanted this woman to die, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her" (v.7). No one did throw a stone, they all left, the woman just stood there, then Jesus forgave her and told her to be on her way; effectively absolving the woman from her act of adultery.

Secondly, consider Islam (not how clerics interpret, but rather what the Qu'ran states). Sura 4:34 suggests that when a husband suspects disobedience (which includes adultery) from his wife, that he is to admonish her, isolate her from the community, and then beat her until she becomes obedient. Not that the wife must actually be disobedient, but merely that the husband has suspicion of disobedience.

In this limited study, Jesus says to absolve the woman who is adulterous, and this is what is 'good'. Muhammad says to rebuke, isolate, and physically beat until obedient, the woman whom the man merely thinks is disobedient (or adulterous), and this is what is 'good'.

Now, provide these two visions of God's goodness to the class, and I can likely assume that 100% of them will think that one is good and one is not good, or rather, evil, based solely upon each person's own sense of what is good. But here, two major world religions, both of which claim the same God and claim supremacy over the other, have contradicting views on the good treatment of women.

So then, I ask, when the word "good" was used today in class in reference to God, whose definition is being used? There are really only a few choices available, those specifically being the definitions provided by Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. For those are the three major religions which are monotheist and all point to the same God as the source of their revelation and understanding of God. It would be illogical, nay impossible, to discuss God as existing or not-existing while using some concept of good-evil to argue this existence without first defining that good-evil, and to do so can only be done through one of or all of these three, none of which in fact offer any sort of system of good-evil wherein God does not exist. Attempting to argue that God does not exist by using qualities of Its existence as the premises? This does not seem to me to be good philosophy.

"...is he--quite safe? I shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion."

"That you will, dearie, and no mistake," said Mrs. Beaver; "if there's anyone who can appear before Aslan without their knees knocking, they're either braver than most or else just silly."

"Then he isn't safe?" said Lucy.

"Safe?" said Mr. Beaver; "don't you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you."

(Lewis, C.S. The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe. Harper Collins: New York NY, 1950, 86.)

(NB: To understand this quote in relation to the above discussion, safe is good, and good is just; although "just" did not come up in the conversation.)

15 January 2006

the Bible does tell us who to vote for

The heart of the wise [votes Conservative],
but the heart of the fool [votes Liberal].

Ecclesiastes 10:2 (New International Version)

New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

13 January 2006

visions of the razr

Notable shots from the V3:

I'm not sure why, but at the time, it seemed rather odd to have a parking meter with a 38 minute time limit. 40. 30. Even 35. Those time limits make sense. But 38?

For the first time ever! My favourite, and Lethbridge's only, ski shop was closed for the day.

I went to Fernie on Thursday and brought along Stephen and Sherri.

Sherri stayed on the flat part all day. I left them on Deer chair after one run. Sherri hadn't been skiing in years, and Stephen had never been at all. Our needs were vastly different. I spent the day in Timber Bowl. I went into Siberia twice, but that bottom traverse just isn't worth it. White Pass was the place to be! Tonnes of powder everywhere! And though it was mostly all cut up by about 11 am, when I took Stephen up top after lunch, we managed to find a bit of virgin snow in which to cut fresh lines. And it didn't even get much skied out at all, which is definitely a treat. I have never been to Fernie on a weekday; weekends are always so busy, especially after a huge dump of snow. Closures were extensive: Currie bowl, Lizard bowl, Cedar bowl. It would be nice to have had Currie open while we were there. At the top of White Pass chair, we were able to see the extent of the leftovers of an avalanche that cruised down into Currie. Very impressive!

Great skiing all day. Got to hang with good friends from down east. I would say that it was awesome. Though, I'm still not convinced as to the actual extent of which Stephen enjoyed himself.

this post contains valuable information of enlightenment

Apple now worth more than Dell
Friday, January 13, 2006 - 04:14 PM EST

On October 6, 1997, in response to the question of what he'd do if he was in charge of Apple Computer, Dell founder and then CEO Michael Dell stood before a crowd of several thousand IT executives and answered flippantly, "What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders".

A little more than a month later, on November 10, 1997, new Apple CEO Steve Jobs responded, speaking in front of an image of Michael Dell's bulls-eye covered face, "We're coming after you, you're in our sights".

Today, after a little more than eight years of hard work, Apple Computer, Inc. passed Dell, Inc. in market value. That's right, at market close Apple Computer ($72,132,428,843) is now worth more than Dell ($71,970,702,760).

Got any snappy retorts for that one, Mr. Dell?

Luckily, Apple has had the right man in charge since July 1997; a man with the vision and the ability to do what lesser men think impossible.

Mac Daily News was the source for this article.

09 January 2006

slippery slopes seduced

The Leaders' Debate. English. Act 2. Scene 1.

  • Martin's empty, shallow, hollow, apologies for the scandals are just hot air escaping and contributing to global warming.

  • Duceppe has my total and utmost respect, IF he shakes that disease of separation.

  • In the Commutopia envisioned by Layton, will everyone be required to grow a moustache?

  • Prime Minister: don't piss us off, you'll likely rule with a minority and we're tired of taking your political b.s.

  • Harper has yet to annoy me. People in Ontario need to do one of two things to achieve non-annoyance status with Harper:
    1. Move to Alberta.
    2. Smoke some BC bud.

Seriously, I could have edited that debate down from 2 hours to about 17 minutes. And that would be stretching it. All of them keep repeating themselves over and over and over and over and over and over. It's slightly past redundant.

If they can all keep their heads above water for the next two weeks, avoid all in-party unpleasantries, I would be willing to make the following predictions:

  • This will be a minority government.

  • The BQ will gain seats.

  • The NDP will gain seats.

  • The Conservatives will gain seats.

  • The Liberals will lose seats.

And that is the extent of my prediction.

For an interactive map of the outcome of the last election, visit The Atlas of Canada. It is colour coded by party and riding. Very useful in making ill-informed predictions, like the one noted above.

Oh yeah, Goodale ought to lose his seat. And I can only hope that Edmontonians do not send McLellan back. That whiny bitch drives me crazy! She's more of an embarrassment to Canada than Martin. It's like the voice of the teacher in Peanuts, but at a higher pitch that's nearly enough to cut diamonds.

Even in a comatose state, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is far more effective at leading his country than Paul Martin ever has been.

08 January 2006

if feminism taught me anything

If feminism taught me anything, it taught that it is permissable to hit a girl. We're equal, right?

Speaking of hitting someone, I wanted to hit someone on Friday. That was the day I was stuck listening to someone blather on about how bad the Conservatives are.

I say, your words are meaningless meaningless meaningless.

Put your words where your money is, or your money where your mouth is. Something like that.

Point is: if you want to trash the Conservatives, then you'd better not be cashing your rebate cheque. In fact, you'd also better refuse the natural gas rebates that show up on your bill, legislated there by the Conservatives. And when the GST drops to 5%, you'd better still pay 7%.

I say: Thank you Ralph. If only you would run for Prime Minister. But please don't, because then all of Canada would become like Alberta, and then Alberta would cease to be better than everyone else. And in a way, I like it the way it is.

06 January 2006

they say that _______ is a battleground

Ontario the "battleground".


There is no battleground. The voters are merely stupid.

stupid |ˈst(y)oōpid|
adjective ( -pider, -pidest)
  • lacking intelligence or common sense : Ontarians were stupid enough to vote Liberal in the last election.

  • dazed and unable to think clearly : Martin and the Liberal propaganda campaign was numbing her brain and making her stupid.

  • informal, used to express exasperation or boredom : she told him to stop voting for his stupid Liberal incumbent.

noun informal
  • a stupid person (often used as a term of address) : you're not voting Liberal, stupid!.

All Canadians must pray to God, Allah, Bhudda, or Oprah!!
Pray for peace, love, understanding!
Pray against another Liberal government!!

The devil has a name: Paul Martin.

05 January 2006

the Darwin Awards

The Darwin Awards

"We salute the improvement of the human genome by honoring those who remove themselves from it. Of necessity, this honor is generally bestowed posthumously."

A couple of my local additions...

Girl crosses busy Trans-Canada highway by foot, at night in the dark, and is struck and killed by a car.

Having lived in Canmore and Calgary and commuted numerous times between the two on this very stretch of highway, I know that I have nearly hit elk several times. The highway is not lit, and often has many shadows and such because it's in the foothills. I also likely never drove less than 120 km/h, and typically about 130 km/h.

Yes yes, it is a horrible tragedy that someone was struck by a car. However, I'm asking this question: Why were you crossing the #1 alone in the dark at night while there was heavy traffic? Especially since you were supposed to be at home babysitting.

I don't speak from ignorance here, I've been hit by a car! But I'm not stupid enough to cross four lanes of divided highway with most vehicles travelling 100 km/h at the minimum. It doesn't make sense.

This stretch of highway, and the village of Morley, are on a reserve. It is never uncommon to see residents wandering/stumbling down the side of the highway.

Wildlife and stock have underpasses and overpasses. They use them.

Experienced skier dies from head trauma after falling off a cliff out of bounds at Whistler.

Initially, the reports were that the skier was out of bounds. However, it is now believed that he was skiing in bounds, but very near the edge of the ski boundary. When he fell, somehow he slid out of bounds and off a cliff.

I've linked the above article because it was the first I found that stated he was not wearing a helmet.

I ski. I sometimes ski alone. But I wouldn't ski extreme double black diamonds alone. And if I did, I would tell someone where I was going. And I always wear a helmet. Not wearing a helmet for participation in any sport is stupid. What one may consider a minor bump on the head can actually be serious enough to cause death.

Again, this is tragic. But one must ask the questions: Why was this skier alone? Why was he not wearing a helmet?

When I'm on the hill, the only people I see not wearing helmets are the infrequent skiers; the vacationers. Anyone who skis regularly wears a helmet.

03 January 2006

now I have been BANNED!!!

Please refrain from commenting on my blog.
Your comments have continued to get worse and worse and you have been very derogatory and belittling towards me. I have had others comment to me about this.

I encourage you to examine why you are so negative and like to put me down. How does this fit into a biblical perspective? I don't mind a bit of sarcasm now and then but u have crossed the line.

I wish u the best in your future endeavours.

That is the body of an email I found in my inbox this morning.

Concerned about what offense I caused the offended, I read back through a month of this writer's posts, and found comments from only three people: myself, the writer's life partner, and the writer's brother. The only person who commented that I was negative was the writer's life partner. The brother made the following comment after the life partner complained again:

[life partner of my brother], I guess if Mr. Lewis can repeat negative comments ad nauseum on this blog, then [my brother] can be let go for repeating something inspirational just once. :)

The blog writer and I have known each other for about 12 years. It is nothing new for the writer to be offended by me. The writer is, in my opinion, extremely conservative and hypersensitive. I cannot even recount the number of times the writer has hung up the phone in the middle of a conversation, walked away or out of the room, or tuned me out, merely because of frustration with me or offence by me. And I say, hang up tune out shut up walk out, all with NO explanation ever.

I cannot change the past, nor do I wish to. Statistically, there will always be someone somewhere who will be offended by anyone or everyone or anything or everything either some of the time or all the time. I can handle people being offended. I don't mind, and I don't care. It's basically a difference of opinion. Such that my policies are this: I respect honesty in the highest, I both expect to receive it, and I give it. I really see no point in continuing in relationship or communication with a person who is not willing to be honest.

Yes, I may at times have neglected to check the tact-o-meter. And that too is combined directly or indirectly with relevance, necessity, timing, and delivery. I make no pretense of being perfect.

And to the neoconservative-fundamentalist-hypersensitive-christian I now respond:

  1. My comments continue to get "worse and worse", yet you give no example or explanation. I have read through all the recent comments, and in my perspective, there is nothing worse, or nothing that progresses from bad to worse.

  2. Derogatory and belittling, eh?
    showing a critical or disrespectful attitude

    This is true, I am derogatory, to the ideologies represented on your blog which are a result of the neoconservative-fundamental-hypersensitive-christianity which you embrace! I am not critical or disrespectful of you personally.
    verb [ trans. ]
    make (someone or something) seem unimportant

    This is a poor choice of word with which to make an accusation against me. If I was trying to make you or your blog unimportant, then I wouldn't comment on it. It is impossible to uphold the argument that I have belittled you by the fact that reading and commenting on your blog makes it important to me.

  3. The 'others' who have commented are your similar minded life partner and your brother. Your brother's comment, quoted above, was not so much to attract attention to the perceived negative comments, but rather that your frequent inspirational posts are balanced by your life partner's claims of yet another negative comment from Lewis. And he was being sarcastic! So really, the 'others' is in truth merely one other, and that other is your life partner, and therefore doesn't really count as unique apart from you.

  4. You encourage me? No you don't. With this email, and with past communications, you use basic christianese to tell me to fuck off. That is not encouragement.
    verb [ trans. ]
    • give support, confidence, or hope to (someone)

    • give support and advice to (someone) so that they will do or continue to do something

    • help or stimulate (an activity, state, or view) to develop

  5. I am critical; to the neoconservative-fundamentalist-hypersensitive-christian this is often confused with and mistaken for negativity. I do not enjoy putting anyone down, anyone including you.

  6. Which biblical perspective do you speak of? The neoconservative-fundamentalist-hypersensitive-christian biblical perspective? No one aside from other neoconservative-fundamentalist-hypersensitive-christians can be accepted into that perspective. There is no room in your theology, bible, churches, or heaven for anyone who doesn't completely agree with you on everything; basically anyone who offends you in any way is not a christian.

  7. The God of the Bible that I read is first and foremost extremely critical. Secondly, It is gracious. And once accepted by It, demands nothing less than grace be extended from the one accepted to all others, regardless of acceptability. You have never (perhaps rarely) been gracious to me in all the years we have known each other, and yet I continue to forgive you for showing me none of the grace which your God has given you, and has asked you to pass on to others, including me.

It seems bitterly ironic and rather fitting that as I have rejected the religious establishment of the church: the groups of whitewashed tombs, I have actually become one of what its members fail to be: an altruistic Christian; a person that best represents Jesus. Though horribly flawed and full of error, I express grace, love, and tolerance based in grace and love for those that choose not to express grace and love.

All Truth is God's Truth, no matter where it's found.

Until the church figures out that it is not the only source of Truth, then its neoconservative-fundamentalist-hypersensitive members will always be offended when confronted by Truth which has its source outside of their bubble of influenced christianity.

02 January 2006

2006 starts off with a bang


I was at Fernie today skiing, and the avalanche control people were blasting the avalanche cannons. Quite a sound if you've never heard it before, no one has told you it's going to happen, and then you hear it. Something akin to war.

Fernie was great today. Totally worth the trip.

Except for lunch.

And it's sad to start off the year this way, but it's got to be done. Another restaurant has been added to the permanently banned list: Kelsey's.

I have been to two different locations over the holidays: Signal Hill, Calgary, on December 23; and Fernie Alpine Resort, Fernie BC, today, January 2. I remember the first visit ever to a Kelsey's, when it had just opened up in St. Thomas, Ontario. I had the cracked peppercorn burger, and it was fantastic! Good enough that I still remember it 8 years later. I'm not sure if I've been to any Kelsey's since that time, but the Signal Hill visit was dismal. The biggest problem is that the burgers are no longer made in the store; they are frozen factory made burgers, the peppercorns have no flavour, because they were ground and frozen to the burger weeks/months before being cooked for my meal. Very disappointing. If you're going to charge $11 for a fucking hambuger, it had better be made fresh in the kitchen when I order it, grilled, not fried.

I had packed a lunch today, but my boarding friends insisted on paying for my lunch at Kelsey's. I'm not one to turn down gratuities. We had to wait 20 minutes for a table, and after being seated were then told that we would wait another 40 minutes for food!!! I can understand the place being busy and not getting a seat for 20 minutes, however, in that time while waiting, there were several tables I could see that were not being cleared. And then 40 minutes for food?!? That's ridiculous. Unacceptable. If I was paying, I would have left. I had a packed lunch in the car anyway. Seriously, if you cannot manage your restaurant to be able to be full and get food orders prepared in under 20 minutes, then perhaps your management skills are lacking, or you don't have enough staff working. It should have been free! And in that 40 minutes, our drinks were never refilled!!!

And only to end up with the same factory pressed cardboard mc-burger. And the fries, though slightly tasty and actually hot, were so few in quantity, I would have got more fries if ordering the child size from any fast food dive.

The pemanently banned restaurant list:

  • Applebee's

  • Kelsey's

  • Moxie's

And what's with the possesive form names of restaurants?