caroljane

It's the illegal means you should worry about. --Brant Ah, Canada--I means, O Canada! I do, Brant, I do worry. Nearly all the illegal guns that kill gang members, and others just for the hell of it, come here from the US, at a nice markup.Capitalism in action/ See the recent Star series about this perversion of the underground railroad. About being killed by legal hunting rifles such as the one I own I am not worried. Stop making the damn handguns and assault weapons, would you [please?

Not that I ever met any Blackhawks personally , or anything.

See the video in the article... A... Don't dare to click, know too much of the ecstasy and am fearing the agony....

FRATERNAL ORDER OF THE SACRED IGLOO lOCAL 13 Dear brother Adam It has come to our attention that WHAT THE FREAK ARE YOU DOIN? On the first playoff night? Did you think we wouldn't notice? Layoff the polar bears OK? Or we will photoshop you at your last Seminar and with Old Man MacAloon when he just came in from the woods plus both the twins. Jeez. ISS Gord Asst. Shaman Well, you know that one in the hand is worth two it the...oops...never mind. I heard that and I resent it! Old Lady McAloon (Mrs)

And, you are, of course, prepared to provide the six ways that it was "debunked?" Yes, sure, I will do it while you are whittling the sticks and collecting the firewood - priorities, Adam!

We seem to have some of each - bless their hearts :-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_52pMg8qQcc&NR=1&feature=endscreen Easier to just roll over and be killed in Canada. Dennis Ah, SunTV.They are doing somersaults right now, to beg for government subsidies for anti-government, rugged individualists such as this.

So nervous. Rational me says, "Don't humiliate us, Bruins!" Most of me says, "Magic time!" Rest of me is wondering if it can seek the comfort of the Collective at the Hag& Sporran. They have suspended Ladies Free Happy Hours for the playoffs. Gougers!

FRATERNAL ORDER OF THE SACRED IGLOO lOCAL 13 Dear brother Adam It has come to our attention that WHAT THE FREAK ARE YOU DOIN? On the first playoff night? Did you think we wouldn't notice? Layoff the polar bears OK? Or we will photoshop you at your last Seminar and with Old Man MacAloon when he just came in from the woods plus both the twins. Jeez. ISS Gord Asst. Shaman

I was just waiting for you to trot out Lott again, Adam. That study is flawed and has been debunked six ways to Sunday at high noon yet. Meanwhile I will hold off moving to a place where nobody wants me dead and stay in a place where few possess the legal means to kill me within seconds.

Cathy, no need to bet, it is true. We have all tried but he is the Unsinkable Gaedey Brant.

That's a great suggestion. Done. Michael Thank you dear bro. Maybe if you have time you could correct my topic typo to Fox North. I could pretend it really means "No Ezra! Republican Toady!" but I am too well known as a touch typist to get away with it. Carol 83 words a minute My Father could do +85. My step-Mother +100 Nayah, nayah! --Brant 15, maybe Brant, stop straining your eyes and forefingers, touchtyping is incredibly easy to learn, just a manual and a keyboard. It is also a soothing repetitive activity that puts you in a nice calm zone. I learned at age 12 from an old book of my mother's and I practiced at school on my desk during Latin class, no keyboard of course just the fingerwork. I played basketball with no basketball. I practiced nudity with my clothes on. Flying without an airplane. --Brant you can't top me! No I can't, that would be Adam's specialty.

Is that you, Phil? You sound a lot like Phil. I haven't been given moronically pointless homework assignments since Phil left. If you're not Phil, and you're actually interested in the subject at hand, I would suggest that you follow your own link to the Ayn Rand lexicon and look up the entry for "esthetic judgment," and focus on understanding the second and third paragraphs. J I am not Phil. And the 'assignment', if you want to call it that, is neither moronic nor pointless. It is an attempt to get you to explain your reasoning. Here are the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs under esthetic judgment. The fact that one agrees or disagrees with an artist’s philosophy is irrelevant to an estheticappraisal of his work qua art. One does not have to agree with an artist (nor even to enjoy him) in order to evaluate his work. In essence, an objective evaluation requires that one identify the artist’s theme, the abstract meaning of his work (exclusively by identifying the evidence contained in the work and allowing no other, outside considerations), then evaluate the means by which he conveys it—i.e., taking his theme as criterion, evaluate the purely esthetic elements of the work, the technical mastery (or lack of it) with which he projects (or fails to project) his view of life . . . . Since art is a philosophical composite, it is not a contradiction to say: “This is a great work of art, but I don’t like it,” provided one defines the exact meaning of that statement: the first part refers to a purely esthetic appraisal, the second to a deeper philosophical level which includes more than esthetic values. How do you connect these 2 paragraphs to your statement that Romanticist art is not the essence of Objectivist esthetics? The "deeper philosophical level I would interpret as, 'what I say, goes' "Not so. The deeper levels are reality and reason, the human spirit, and all that. Notwithstanding that AR had her preferences, which are like the outer skin of the onion and could easily be discarded. To give her a 'charitable' chance, you have to cut to the deeper layers. Have you read The Romantic Manifesto? It may surprise you.Tony, I have read it but so long ago I don't remember anything from it. The impression that remains is what I registered above - it all derives, from A is A, and A is what I say it is.

Or bloody but unbowed. I was interested to see that two of the Masterton winners were in fact two of my first adolescent crushes, Ratelle and Gilbert of the Rangers! How Randish is that? Sorry to mix threads.

It is win-win for Sun anyway. If the CRTC turns them down they can scream that despotic Canada is determined to silence all dissenting voices. If they get approved, Pelardeau can still write them off to tax advantage. The usual nobody will still watch them either way.

That's a great suggestion. Done. Michael Thank you dear bro. Maybe if you have time you could correct my topic typo to Fox North. I could pretend it really means "No Ezra! Republican Toady!" but I am too well known as a touch typist to get away with it. Carol 83 words a minute My Father could do +85. My step-Mother +100 Nayah, nayah! --Brant 15, maybe Brant, stop straining your eyes and forefingers, touchtyping is incredibly easy to learn, just a manual and a keyboard. It is also a soothing repetitive activity that puts you in a nice calm zone. I learned at age 12 from an old book of my mother's and I practiced at school on my desk during Latin class, no keyboard of course just the fingerwork.

SunTV started out boldly with "we built this" and "they will come", but they didn't and they are ignored by viewers in favour of the two top channels, private CTV and public CBC. Even the rightest wingers quickly noticed that Canadian newsreaders quoting American pundits and trying to adapt American situations to Canadian ones, is something they could do themselves at no cost, or let Charles Adler on the radio do it for them.

Carol, That's a great suggestion. Done. Michael Thank you dear bro. Maybe if you have time you could correct my topic typo to Fox North. I could pretend it really means "No Ezra! Republican Toady!" but I am too well known as a touch typist to get away with it. Carol 83 words a minute

Yup, you do except for the good part which is of course subjective. Especially to the Sun owners, who are stressing their 100% Canadian content (ie 99% Sun staffers and 1% Americans they don't have to pay), and their community importance (nil except for the sports pages).

Trying to calm pre-game jitters, I remember that SunTV, the conservative voice of "balance" up here, is currently waiting to see if the government will subsidize it so that it can be seen by people too poor to afford cable or satellite or even a TV at all, really. If they succeed, rejoice that the onward march of Ayn Rand Influence will be quickstepped. As Heather Mallick reports in the Toronto Star, one of the on-air presenters has "orange wings growing out of his head."

"full and empty like the calculus tree..." - Mitchell Sorry, I thought you said cactus

Rand's novels, perhaps. Hard act to follow. Carol butting out now

Is that you, Phil? You sound a lot like Phil. I haven't been given moronically pointless homework assignments since Phil left. If you're not Phil, and you're actually interested in the subject at hand, I would suggest that you follow your own link to the Ayn Rand lexicon and look up the entry for "esthetic judgment," and focus on understanding the second and third paragraphs. J I am not Phil. And the 'assignment', if you want to call it that, is neither moronic nor pointless. It is an attempt to get you to explain your reasoning. Here are the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs under esthetic judgment. The fact that one agrees or disagrees with an artist’s philosophy is irrelevant to an estheticappraisal of his work qua art. One does not have to agree with an artist (nor even to enjoy him) in order to evaluate his work. In essence, an objective evaluation requires that one identify the artist’s theme, the abstract meaning of his work (exclusively by identifying the evidence contained in the work and allowing no other, outside considerations), then evaluate the means by which he conveys it—i.e., taking his theme as criterion, evaluate the purely esthetic elements of the work, the technical mastery (or lack of it) with which he projects (or fails to project) his view of life . . . . Since art is a philosophical composite, it is not a contradiction to say: “This is a great work of art, but I don’t like it,” provided one defines the exact meaning of that statement: the first part refers to a purely esthetic appraisal, the second to a deeper philosophical level which includes more than esthetic values. How do you connect these 2 paragraphs to your statement that Romanticist art is not the essence of Objectivist esthetics? The "deeper philosophical level" I would interpret as, "what I say, goes" "

Is that you, Phil? You sound a lot like Phil. I haven't been given moronically pointless homework assignments since Phil left. If you're not Phil, and you're actually interested in the subject at hand, I would suggest that you follow your own link to the Ayn Rand lexicon and look up the entry for "esthetic judgment," and focus on understanding the second and third paragraphs. J I am not Phil. And the 'assignment', if you want to call it that, is neither moronic nor pointless. It is an attempt to get you to explain your reasoning. Here are the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs under esthetic judgment. The fact that one agrees or disagrees with an artist’s philosophy is irrelevant to an estheticappraisal of his work qua art. One does not have to agree with an artist (nor even to enjoy him) in order to evaluate his work. In essence, an objective evaluation requires that one identify the artist’s theme, the abstract meaning of his work (exclusively by identifying the evidence contained in the work and allowing no other, outside considerations), then evaluate the means by which he conveys it—i.e., taking his theme as criterion, evaluate the purely esthetic elements of the work, the technical mastery (or lack of it) with which he projects (or fails to project) his view of life . . . . Since art is a philosophical composite, it is not a contradiction to say: “This is a great work of art, but I don’t like it,” provided one defines the exact meaning of that statement: the first part refers to a purely esthetic appraisal, the second to a deeper philosophical level which includes more than esthetic values. How do you connect these 2 paragraphs to your statement that Romanticist art is not the essence of Objectivist esthetics? The "deeper philosophical level I would interpret as, 'what I say, goes' "

Brant, (and anyone else who is a finals-only type hockey viewer), to increase your spectating pleasure I recommend to you "The bandwagon fan's Guide to the NHL playoffs" , the latest entry on Downgoesbrown.

It's true, soccer players get way less banged up, especially in the head, and can usually play longer than skaters. But hockey players are masochists who love playing for its own sake. James Reimer for example, as a kid froze both his ears playing in his backyard rink, he had to wear bandages for weeks and they still look funny. He was just having so much fun he forgot it was forty below.