orvisonly

The real challenge to getting marijuana leaglized is that the only real proponents of the change are heavy users, and as a result, cognitively damaged. It is possible, I suppose, that innate idiocy leads to heavy marijuana use and not the other way around, but nevertheless, the two traits seem to have almost 100 percent correlation.

Clearly

Don't be so hard on yourself. You're doing fine.

Bad idea. Fly fishing should not be mandated. Some people don't understand and will never appreciate the true brilliance of fly fishing. You can't legislate it in anymore than you could legislate that people only drink good red wine. Just as there will always be those that differentiate the quality of a bottle by the volume it holds, there will be anglers that choose less refined methods. You should not let that diminish your enjoyment of the art of fly fishing. Trying to convince the unenlightened of the crudeness of their methods is like trying to debate the Quantity Thoeretic framework of money to a salesman from Futureshop. You might contend that Marx's view overstated the effect of the rapidity of alternation of the antithetical processes of circulation on determining the quantity of circulating medium (And, of course, you would be spot on in my opinion). However, the concept is so far beyond the comprehension of your audience that even though you are right, you would be wasting your breath. Even worse, you might be threatened with violence if you choose the wrong salesman. If you can appreciate true fly fishing, do so. For those that can't - have the wisdom and compassion to understand that it is not a choice they have made, but rather a defect in character that neither you nor they can change. I sincerely hope this will promote tolerance of the Spey fishers going forward.

Could you point me to the partisan part, please?

I hate it when I'm fishing and I put what I think is an excellent presentation over an area where I can see a fish holding. It floats right by and the fish doesn't even move. Makes me realize that even though I thought it was a good drift, it was probably clumbsy and obvious. The same presentations work well on smaller fish though.

Thank you for your opinion on this rickr. I do love political history buffs, but I regret that I give you a C- for the quality of your research. What is being suggested is a coalition between a staunch federalist party and a party whose stated mandate is to break up that federation. Calling that normal in a parlimentary system is akin to saying if Winston and Adolf had formed an alliance to avoid conflict, that would have been normal. Perhaps the university of Wikpedia has let you down here. Since Confederation (you can google that to find out what it is), there has been a grand total of one (1) coalition government in Canada. It was formed in 1917 and was announced BEFORE the election. Suggesting that Canadians should have expected that the Grits, the Reds, and the Blockheads would form a coalition AFTER the election is absurd. This is especially true given that the notion of a coalition was soundly rejected by Mr. Dion during the election. As an expert on the Westminster Model, you must know that in addition to Great Britain, it is used by many Commonwealth countries. Great Britain hasn't had a coalition government since WW II, and it, like the only other coalition since 1900 in Great Britain was proposed by the Queen during times of war and not in an effort to defeat a minority government. Italy, Germany, Turkey, Israel, the Nordic countries and most other places where coalitions are common do not belong to the Commonwealth, and they do not use the Westminster Model of Parliament. Perhaps you could look up the difference between constitutional monarchies and parliamentary republics. Coalitions are more common in the latter. I would also suggest that you research the significance of the Speech from the Throne of a new government in the Westminster system, and what it means when the opposition parties let it pass "on division". Perhaps then you may understand why Mr.Harper might feel he did have a mandate. If you do some more research for your dissertation, you might come to a different conclusion regarding precedence for the scenario presented.

Sure. You can be a glass half empty person and see the down-side. But think of the upside. One more job just became available in a depressed job market. My cousin was supposed to be there for that sale but he stopped in a Montreal parking garage on the way. Lucky thing for him.

I think this was overdue. Too many Albertans are plundering BC resources without fair compensation to the local residents. I don't agree that this is meant to disuade Albertans from fishing the river. In fact the tourism BC website has the following to say on the subject: We are Glad tO have Friendly toUrists from the east Come to the sKeena. YOU aRe alwayS wELcome to Fish here ALBERTA".

That is so very Canadian. Have they watched the Junos ever? (okay, stupid question, noone would ever admit to watching the Junos). Every second comment is a political statement about something. This is a good example of a left wing response - "I'll tell my mom on you!" I cannot imagine how much inferiority someone would have to feel to actually send in a complaint for something like this. However, I could very well see a few of the people on this board doing it. BTW - have to laugh at Dalton and the rest of the bleeding heart Canadians that so strongly felt Obama was the right person for the job. Free Trade is just the start. For all the sarcastic and arrogant Canadians that feel so much superior to our neighbors, see how you feel when you have no job because your best customer decided to shop at home.

I agree Maclean's is left wing biased and thought you'd like that. I would have preferred a survey of ex-hippies who backpacked through Europe in the 60's, but couldn't find one. However, it should be easy to develop such a survey because the number of Canadians that claim to have backpacked through Europe in the sixties is only slightly exceeded by the number of Americans that claim to have attended Woodstock. What you said initially was pride in education; what you described above is more a measure of intelligence. Two different things. A lack of intelligence can be masked by a certain level of education and the opposite is true as well. Most intelligent people would understand the difference between education and intelligence, but many educated people would not. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on your last statement and assume that you were standing too close to your friends from the 60's while they were exhaling. You cannot possibly believe that. In conclusion, Tasers should be used (but only by educated policemen who smoke dope and can point out the country of Benin on a world map, while asking themselves, "Why if man evolved from monkeys and apes, do we still have monkeys and apes?")

I agree. Ignorance abounds. Many people take their own opinions and present them as fact, even when a good deal of readily available information does not support those conclusions. Hey - did you happen to see what MacLean' has to say about our reputation? TORONTO, Nov. 9 /CNW/ - Canada feels richer and more confident today than it did 14 years ago. Canadians feel it, and much of the world does too, according to a survey by Angus Reid Strategies for Maclean's of 20 countries and their views on Canada and the world. The results are in sharp contrast to 1992, when the Angus Reid Group (now Ipsos Reid) conducted a similar survey of 13 of the same countries. Highlights follow with full details available in the issue of Maclean's arriving on newsstands across the country starting today. Agreed. Back in 1981, an impressive 8% of the population had a university degree. By 2001 that number had shrunk to 15%. And last year it had fallen all the way to just under 20%. We must stop this trend.

Great point. Could not agree more. I have this great spot that produces large rainbows every time I go to it. I went there often this year and never saw anyone else or even any sign of anyone else. Lots of drift boats would go though and very often I would have a large fish on. One day I park at the top of the road by McKinnons Flats as usual, walk down the fence line to the west as usual, then walking along the ridge to my secret spot. It takes me 1/2 to walk the 2.1 km, so you can understand my surprise when I get there and some person is fishing my spot. Worse, he isn't even fly fishing. He is using some great long bait tossing pole, that he has rigged up with a fly reel the size of a large coffee can and he has three crudely tied "flies" with about 5 pounds of lead, barrel swivels and the works. He is of course catching nothing. I keep my distance, but the fellow approaches me and asks how I found this place. I explain that I have been fishing it for some time, and remark that I have not seem him before. That's when he tells me that his good friend was drifting by with a guide a week earlier, and they saw this guy catching a huge rainbow at this exact location. Here is the kicker. His friend had sent him the exact GPS coordinates of the spot (50.811819 N 113.727851 W). Can you believe someone giving away a great spot like that?

Real skiers use two skis.

When that happens, perhaps all the "transients" from Sask, NFLD, Ontario, and other parts I won't mess with, will follow the advantage to where it ends up. At that point, we can revisit all of the 'improvements' they helped get implemented while they were here. BTW - I hear it is only going to cost me 23% higher taxes next year to get rid of Bronco Dave. That is a tremendously good bargain if you ask me, I would be willing to pay twice that.

I agree. I was reading an interesting article on my way in to work today. It spoke of how dangerous talking on cellphones while driving is. Amazingly, while I was reading it a person, who was talking on his phone, cuts right in front of me. Luckily, I managed to swerve and miss him, but ended up spilling my coffee all over the back of my girfriend's head.

You are not. I apologize for confusing you, it was not my intention. This is why I would not be a good elementary school teacher. Does this apply to written statements as well? I believe I said I do not trust politicians. Perhaps this was not clear enough. I am more conservative in my views than some, and less than others. I understand and accept both views and more importantly, the need for both views. I do not form an opinion of the person's character or intelligence based on those views or based on clips of network interviews. I understand why someone who is wealthy would want less tax, and an immigrant making minimum wage would support more tax. I understand that the vast majority of people in a democracy are woefully uninformed, and base their views on meaningless issues. In most cases, the two extremes of ignorance balance out and we end up close to the middle. Whether it is a Democrat in the oval office or a Republican, in the long run it makes little difference. I'm not offended that you feel Ms.Palin is not intelligent. I suggested to you that your opinion on this was based on known unreliable sources, and tried to balance that by using a similar example with Barack Obama. I believe that a few others echoed this sentiment - that you cannot believe everything you read or see on TV. I think you are 'slammin' yourself more than anyone else, by refusing to acknowledge the real reason you 'fear' Ms. Palin - you disagree with her political views (or what you think her politcal views are).

Very good points. If you could just point to the part where I said that the media was liberal-biased, I'll be on my way. Perhaps you think I was referring to the media as being liberal-biased because the media has been delivering a message that anyone that criticizes the media is accusing them of being liberal biased. In reality, I specifically said that both liberal and conservative media groups distort the information you receive. You believe you saw the full interviews? What you saw were the portions of the interviews that were chosen by the network to air. However, the media will show you what you want to see - so I don't blame them. I blame you for taking that and basing your beliefs on it. Imagine if the statment made by Barack Obama about 'his Muslim faith' was all that you saw of the interview with George. Would you believe he was really a Muslim? Probably not, because you wouldn't want to believe it. But others would want to believe it, and so they do. You probably look down on anyone who gets their information from the National Enquirer. The 'respected' media outlets are not much different, they just deceive a different group of people - sometimes with bias and intent, other times the deception is just a product of ingorance.

Sounds like toolman has been fishing this lake, and hooked this fish twice.

I'll tell you what is scary. It is scary how easily weak minds can be shaped by the media. One thing is certain and that is that whether a media outlet is liberal or conservative - the facts they present are never that. If you have ever had inside knowledge of a story that is reported in a major newspaper, you will have noticed that they got much of the information wrong. This is the same for every story. I don't know Ms.Palin. I also don't know Mr. Biden. I doubt you do either. I do know that I do not trust people who have a vested interest in selling me something - that includes the media and politicians. I will say that I found it very interesting that at 6:00 pm yesterday, it was announced that Palin was cleared of any wrongdoing by the Ethics panel - wonderful timing don't you think? We have many socialists in Canada, and they serve a purpose. Things that you say, or believe do not scare me any more than things that someone on the far right might say or believe. What would scare me is if everyone was of one view or the other collectively.

I personally do not understand why people have such an aversion to what is just a normal human behavior. People don't choose to be like this, they are born this way. It is a part of their DNA. So, I for one say, "Leave the homophobes alone!" I was downtown a while ago, standing outside, and there was a man near me smoking. As we were standing there, two other men walked by holding hands. They were obviously very much in love. One of the men looks at the guy smoking and says to him, "How can you put that vile thing in your mouth?" That's the kind of intolerance we are forced to live with.

I do not beieve that he is a iberal. In my opinion, he wi ikey be a he of a eader. Peope need to have more toerance of our eected officias.

Now that is a good one. Detest - to dislike greatly and often with disgust or intolerance. I agree. I also believe it is nice to be nice to the nice.

I have a suggestion for the moderators. Open a category for Calgary only members to discuss fly fishing. Most of the nonsensical postering is genertated by those not from or living in Calgary.

Wind is probably the most responsible. Tires can also have a major effect, especially if you had large tires with aggeressive tread. Finally speed combined with wind will make huge difference. Driving at 120 km into a 30 wind will yield up to 35-40 percent lower mileage than travelling at 110 with a 30 km wind tailwind. As for mileage, or anything else, premium does not make a difference for engines designed to run on regular octane fuel. Higher Octane does not mean more heat energy, it simply means that the fuel requires higher compression before it will ignite. For high compression engines, premium may help to ensure that the fuel does not ingite before spark is present. Most independent engineers agree that engine manufacturers have to work really hard to make an engine that won't run well on regular fuel. This is so that the person who spends 100 thousand on a vehicle doesn't have to buy the same fuel as the common folk. Marketing works. Add premium to anything and people will gladly pay more. Sometimes the premium version is better, many times it is not. The rest of the info about premium burning cleaner etc is incorrect. And for your info - the premium gas costs refiners nothing more to make, but they nearly double their profit when selling to retailers. Retailers also make more than double the profit. Of course, this also helps auto makers charge you more for vehicles because they have intentially designed it not to run well on regular octane fuel (this takes some effort and most engines designed for premium will run perfectly well on regular). The beauty of this marketing is that consumers, who are most often too lazy to do 20 minutes of research, not only fall for this fantasy, they perpetuate the myths by drawing a causal relationship between premium fuel and any number of outcomes, for which only some degree of correlation exists.