jimbow

uh oh ... like the flames of old ... losing games to teams way down in the standings. not a good thing at all. and yes i hate to admit highlander the canucks are definitely in the rear view mirror now. not to mention the two toughest games of the road trip ahead. ah well brodeur is due for a come down after his rather stellar return....isn't he? the worst would be a loss to the leafs on saturday. that would hurt. go flames go.

hmmm based on your posts i you were an interesting character with experience and an excellent sense of humour. now i'm even more intrigued in that i'm from outlook originally. since this story broke been trying to figure out if it would be worthwhile to go back "home" to fly fish diefenbaker. what's your connection to outlook?

how's sundin working out so far?

uh oh. i don't like the looks of this. beating the good teams and not the bad ones. definitely been a problem in years past - the old flames. let's hope this was just a blip and they'll get back to playing like they can and have been - the new flames columbus will be a good test of whether it's back to the old flames or the new flames.

i don't think you actually need to register for the warranty to be effective in canada. i've had 2 sage rods repaired under warranty neither of which was registered.

i think you'd have to pay for the inspection but it would be worthwhile and then you can take it where you want. the last car my wife and i bought we first agreed on a price subject to inspection. then negotiated a number of issues off the price that was agreed upon based on the inspection. i have actually seen cars where the owner had the inspection down but at something like joe's garage. personally i'd be a little sceptical of those.

d'oh what a homer simpsom move. the software that came with the camera does this. thanks for pointing out what should have been obvious.

thank gawd for some depth on the team this year. spreading the scoring around makes a big big difference. bourque, glencross, moss and dammit even bertuzzi have been contributing nicely. if only kipper can get back to his old ways.

i have the olympus 770sw. have resolution on highest setting which presumably makes sense or why bother have a camera with that resolution. pics are fine but very large in size for emailing (generally about 1.5mb). is there anyway to shrink the size of them after they are downloaded to the computer? thx, james

kinda like a discussion on hunting board recently regarding sunday hunting. the "authorities" are (were) telling people that only game birds could be hunted on sunday but that didn't include pheasants or migratory birds. blatantly wrong. i think the rule is fight the power.

hmmm, don't agree. my fave rod is (should be was) sage 389-3LL. great on small streams and great on the bow river. had a 379LL which was good too but way prefer the 8'9" the extra reach is great. also have a winston 7'6" and it hasn't left the closet in about 6 years. probably one of those to each his own things. what would the problem be with it longer? but unfortunately my pal's @#$%^&*(@#^%$ choc lab turned it from a 3 piece into a 5 piece rod as i was stringing it last weekend. still don't understand how he broke a 7" piece out of one of the sections but he did. not sure what will happen with the warranty as i think the LL line is discontinued.

i don't have my camera with me so I can't look to exactly where it is but i believe it's an option when you are transferring photos. I didn't see it myself when i first got the camera. The other issue is that i think once you turn it on it will always delete them (or is it you have to choose the delete option every time i forget) so careful if you want to keep some on your camera for say displaying on a tv. i will try to check tonight as to where it is on the process that you choose it. i do recall it is not intuitively easy to use. you can also delete all the pics at once using the menu on the camera or of couse pic by pic (which would be a pain in the ass).

didn't you get a CD with the camera that had the Olympus transfer software? i did (bought 770SW in March 2007) and it was called Olympus Master 2. works fine. likely can get it off the interweb at Olympus site - i'm guessing.

on the transfer software that came with my camera this an option you can choose during the download to erase the pics after the transfer. that would be another option.

22 people have died in the last 5 years (i believe) from tazer incidents in Canada. clearly the use of tazers should be looked at more closely and a proper policy of when it is appropriate to use them be established. imdao, tazers are overused plain and simple. a non-english speaking, unarmed man who is kept for over 6 hours in an airport room is tazered 2 (or was it 3?...including once while on the floor incapacitated) times 30 SECONDS AFTER THE COPS ARRIVED ON THE SCENE and dies. seems very wrong. an elderly man, laying in a hospital bed holding a pen knife (not sure how big but say average swiss army knife size) is tazered. seems very wrong. vancouver transit cops tazer passengers who have no tickets and try to run away without paying. seems very wrong. an unarmed, young, drunk woman is tazered while in custody in a cell in winnipeg. seems very wrong. a 5'6", 110 lb teenager holding a knife is tazered and dies. wrong? well not sure about that but i cannot believe that the police could not disarm a little guy like that with a nightstick. no doubt being a police officer is a dangerous job with lots of risks but it seems to me that the use of the tazer is becoming standard OP and is used instead of physically subduing a suspect. when a person has a weapon i can see the use of the tazer being justified but if no weapon no justification.

yes register and license and charge a fee. only alberta resident allowed to guide on ab waters. institute insurance requirement and min stds for first aid etc.

once a homophobe always a homophobe. but of course considering the party nothing will happen.

calgary pioneer hall (not sure about the name) in parkhill. very nice spot with a great view of the city, the elbow and the mountains if the clouds are lifted. community halls are another option.

although i won't deny that would be an appropriate name for me if you've been to either of the TU fundraisers (esp the spring event) you know of where i speak. personally i find it quite amusing how as the evening goes on and the booze flows that the ticket sellers in the crowd attract a lot of followers.

so does that mean you'll be walking around the event in a revealing/sexy dress with the other "ticket sellers?"

ummm, here's a clue for you, it is affected. i may be affected or maybe i won't be (see prediction below). i understand you're concerned but before you start telling people the sky is falling you may want to ensure that you can prove that in fact the sky is falling..... my point is that it was the royalty review not the economics of the oil and gas industry review. i'm not saying that the land costs don't impact the economics but clearly that was not part of the mandate of the panel to review. the land costs are a separate issue from the royalties. does the land cost impact on the royalty rate in any way? perhaps the amount companies are willing to pay for land will decrease if royalties increase? perhaps they will still pay what they were paying before the royalty review? time will tell. my understanding is that over the last few years companies were in fact overpaying on the land cost such that companies without deep pockets couldn't compete at land sales. i had lunch today with a senior vp of a mid size energy trust who although said although in his view there are problems with some of the recommendations he and his company are not overly concerned. based on his comments i'd say there's a lot of huffing and puffing going on whereas well managed companies are prepared to roll with the new rules. this is not the NEP. the $ are going to stay in Alberta so seems a bit dramatic to play that card. what you should take comfort in is that stelmach has been a disaster as premier from the beginning. he will capitulate to the oil money. there will be changes but overall they will be relatively minor and not in any way a slaughter of the industry (although the oil sands may take a hit).

if that's not scare mongering i don't know what is? land sales are separate and distinct from royalties. sure they result in money to AB but the issue is the royalty scheme not the overall economics of the industry. the best thing that could happen to AB right now is for oil to drop to $60/bbl. and housing prices to drop say 33%. get the economy back to reality. do we really want an inflation rate that is more than twice the national average? the oil companies and service companies will adjust - they always do. no more over inflated salaries. no more every second friday off on top of flex days. no more xmas parties at $400 per person. if you choose to work in an industry of bust and boom you'd better be prepared for both possibilities. to the oil companies that are going to leave alberta i say don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. and of course you'll be welcomed back when you inevitably return.

although i can understand those working directly in the industry being upset about possible changes imdao the issue is what is good for the whole of AB not just the O&G producers or service corps (and their employees and shareholders). will it hurt them - maybe yes but maybe no. costs (both E&D costs and admin costs) were already out of control (or at least too high for the economics of many drilling opportunities) prior to the royalty review. layoffs had started prior to the royalty review report being released. the government's own royalty review 2 years ago indicated an increase of $1 billion would not adversely affect the industry but did we Albertans hear about this? nope. hmmm wonder why that wouldn't be made public? as taco indicated lougheed made big changes and although there was plenty of squawking the industry adjusted. this is not the NEP all over again. the $ stay in AB where they belong. those making the biggest noise about the royalty issue have the biggest vested interest in the status quo (producers and investment bankers). reasonable changes need to be made (esp in the oil sands now that the prices have substantially increased from the time when the royalty breaks were introduced). the review's recommendations on the whole appear to be reasonable. maybe the companies will actually take their money elsewhere but in the end they will come back to where the resource is located - AB esp the tar sands. but i think it is so much sabre rattling and nothing more. businesses will adjust to the new economics or they won't survive which is the capitalist way.

maybe you'll answer this question. say i buy something at shop x and it turns out to be defective and i go back to shop x and they say no it's not defective, not covered by warranty and you're not getting your money back (for argument's sake say i'm in the right here not the shop). is it the position of the mods on this board that i would not be allowed to post (or you'd delete the post if i made one) and explain my situation that shop x has bad service, won't honour the products they sell and others should be aware of that before they give their money to shop x? i honestly thought such a post would be allowed and welcomed by users of the forum which is why i'm asking the question. edit add on - aahhh interesting that it took posting here for mkm to get a resolution. i think most businesses want to know when their is a problem (perceived or actual) to resolve it. which is why many of them have signs up saying stuff like "did we do good tell others did we do bad tell us"

i don't believe i said you did - what i said was you had the right to ban whoever for whatever. toolman, i don't believe you've actually indicated why the name cannot be posted other than some pie in the sky fear of legal reprisal. just to set the record straight will you post the reason the name of the gutless guide cannot be posted in a straight forward, non-sarcastic manner?