jimbow

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?

just to make my position clear - of course the moderators have the right to censor as they see fit, ban users from the site for whatever reason they want including petty personal ones or make everyone choose a flowery name to post if they so desire. it's their crayons (to use some else's analogy) and they can use them as they like. my own view (and this goes for not just issues like this but many, many others) is that too many people today won't say *hit if they have a mouthful. this is a perfect example. guide didn't show and won't explain himself. clearly has no concern for his reputation or livelihood or career or he would at least respond to say sorry i screwed up. hey if there turns out to be a legitimate reason for not showing he could explain himself and clear up the issue. so it's ok to make public comment on a faceless corporation or big business but not this matter? that would be hypocrisy - pure and simple. the previous board that this one has more or less replaced was milquetoast through and through. sure was hoping this would be a real forum open for public comment. i stand by my earlier comments and will add - bock bock bock.

i for one want to know when a business does not provide good service or have good business practices to avoid that business. it's always so surprising to me when people have no backbone for posting names and information in these exact situations. the guide didn't show and has not responded to telephone calls and emails. as someone posted simply stating the facts cannot and would not result in any legal action - how could it? try to prove damages from such a post. facts are facts. no lawyer, with any brains, is going to take on such a case. it would be a lost cause from the start. i think fisherwoman must be american given her use of the term attorney where it's a more litigious society and that is likely where she's coming from. since when did people turn into such milquetoasts? come on moderators show some backbone. unless you have a written opinion from a lawyer on this issue you're just 'fraidy cats.

congrats on the success of your trip. so often we here that steelhead are the fish of a thousand casts (wait, maybe that's atlantic salmon?) but not for you. that fishing trip is still to crossed off my fishing to do list.

i'll take a hat (no size given since they have the hole at back assuming it means they are adjustable) and t-shirt (L).

hat for me for sure. and possibly shirt, depending on the graphic/logo.

congrats, kids are great, until they start to sass you.....but you've got a few years for that.

da man or just plain lucky? how on earth do you stick a grizzly bear in a vital spot during a mauling? wow he must be thanking the stars (or someone or something). and i thought a casual friend of mine was lucky as he just had a serious heart attack at the Foothills Hospital while picking up his father in law from gall bladder surgery. lucky to have it in a hospital as apparently without immediate medical attention he would have died.

my fave from 2007....so far (actually not that great but trying to post pic for 1st time)

is nimtija lodge on bow lake? was there years and years ago but can't remember what lake it is.

i think the bow river tu chapter did a map a long time ago which is exactly what youwant. not sure if you can still buy it. it was a good one so may be for sale. check with any fly shop to see if they have it.

was on the bow for 2 days and saw dead floating trout on both days. no thermometer but legs told me the river was quite warm.

was very surprised that the water users agreed to this. never thought the irrigators would give up their water for that kind of development. there must have been more to it than the pipeline issue. why would they give up their water for nothing (there must be grease in there somewhere)? they will regret this decision.

fri - Eddie Harris Artist Choice Disk 1 on way out and Johnny Cash Legend Disk 1 on way home sat - Big Blunts 11 Smokin' Reggae Hits on way out and Charlie Poole You Ain't Talkin' to Me Disk 1 on way home.

you must have nerves of steel to go that fast on a bike.