Weedy1

Absoulute f'in bullshit!!!! This is what he really meant to say “given the risks associated with losing a player and the amount of revenue the players generate, it was necessary to get the players vaccinated against H1N1 as efficiently as possible in order to prevent any loss of profits to the club." What a crock - if this gets hits the media hard I'll guarentee protesters on the Legislature grounds soon.

Ernest Manning? Preston was the little bratty kid.

Whatta ya think? Too heavy on the tats?

Dube, there are many reasons people get sick and need to go to the hospital besides having the H1N1 flu. There are other flu strains as well as all the other medical treatments that require taking care of on a dialy basis, such as your girlfriends case. Having lines of people who are sick due to H1N1 that could have been prevented with a shot is simply irresponsible on their part. Why potentially use up resources if it can be prevented?

If the lineups outside the hospitals get to the point that the medical system has to start turning people away, will those of you that decided NOT to get your shot be willing to step aside for someone that is sick who did get their shot? Get it?

Why don't you put up a poll instead of speaking for everyone else. This isn't a dictatorship around here is it? If it turns out your correct I would like you oh mighty one to consider the following as my submission to your contest: FFC.com

Aw gee thanks Max. Couldn't have done it without your perspiration.

Just for Dave

So what are YOUR reasons for having a logo? This thread gets better and better by the day........

Wow Dave, I be impresed. Wifey buy you a new dicnary or summin? Dat pugnacious werd is awfly big for u ain't it?

So really you have nothing, right?

Where did the fish come from? It looks to be an image cut and pasted from the net. Has to be original, copyright and all.

This fellow does some nice work. http://www.flickr.com/photos/opoterser/ http://www.lightstalking.com/macro-bugs

Much better than the pumpkin hat. I like this idea yet it should relay the sites web address or at least something that would direct a person to the site if the term within the logo was googled. How would anyone,besides people who visit this site, know what FFC means?

I love it!!! A little TLC and that idea could be a kickass logo. Now maybe one of the Photoshop pros could get on it.

That sucks really really bad. It has absoulutley no originality to it and looks like something put together from a few downloads off the internet. I swear I saw a trucker wearing that hat back in 1972.

And some examples of what is possible by embroidery machines nowadays. Basically anything can be embroidered if your willing to pay the price. Also take a look a these designs: http://www.threadartist.com/embroidery-designs-index.htm

It's all really simple, just make sure you supply the dog with the right tools for the job. LINK: http://www.myweirdstory.com/images/gallery/374.jpg (WARNING: LINK CONTAINS FULL FRONTAL NUDITY - MAY NOT BE SUITABLE FOR SOME ANAL RETENTIVE VIEWERS.)

And for anyone who would like to add to his defense fund here is where to look. http://www.brianknightlegalfund.com/ Long live the RedNecks!!!!! (Disclaimer: I don't condone any of the actions in the above mentioned story but..... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Long live the RedNecks!!!!!

As far as I can figure the use of reasonable force is justified in order to remove a trespasser. Make what you want of this: From the Criminal Code of Canada: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-...a:s_3_1-gb:s_38 Defence of house or real property 41. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling-house or real property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is necessary. Assault by trespasser (2) A trespasser who resists an attempt by a person who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, or a person lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority to prevent his entry or to remove him, shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation. R.S., c. C-34, s. 41. Assertion of right to house or real property 42. (1) Every one is justified in peaceably entering a dwelling-house or real property by day to take possession of it if he, or a person under whose authority he acts, is lawfully entitled to possession of it. Assault in case of lawful entry (2) Where a person (a) not having peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right, or (b ) not acting under the authority of a person who has peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right, assaults a person who is lawfully entitled to possession of it and who is entering it peaceably by day to take possession of it, for the purpose of preventing him from entering, the assault shall be deemed to be without justification or provocation. Trespasser provoking assault (3) Where a person (a) having peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right, or (b ) acting under the authority of a person who has peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right, assaults any person who is lawfully entitled to possession of it and who is entering it peaceably by day to take possession of it, for the purpose of preventing him from entering, the assault shall be deemed to be provoked by the person who is entering. R.S., c. C-34, s. 42. AND for anyone wondering how this would apply to access to leased crown land in Alberta: From: http://www.justice.gov.ab.ca/criminal_pros...lt.aspx?id=5676 TRESPASS ON LEASED GRAZING LAND DATE: May 20, 2008 SUBJECT: GUIDELINE GOVERNING THE PROSECUTION OF THOSE WHO ENTER UPON LEASED GRAZING LAND BACKGROUND: Crown prosecutors are sometimes required to consider whether to commence or continue a prosecution of an individual who is alleged to have entered Crown land that has been subject to an agricultural disposition pursuant to the Public Lands Act, RSA 2000, c. P-40 (e.g., a lease by the Crown for the purpose of allowing the lessee to graze livestock). The following principles govern the consideration and conduct of any such prosecution. GUIDELINE: 1. There is authority for the proposition that, at common law, a lessee of Crown land may prohibit access to the leased land and may hold a trespasser civilly liable in tort. 2. Pursuant to ss. 1, 2, 2.1 and 3 of the Petty Trespass Act, RSA 2000, c. P-11, those who enter Crown land that is subject to a disposition pursuant to the Public Lands Act may be prosecuted for trespass under that Act. 3. However, pursuant to s. 1.1 of the Petty Trespass Act those who enter such lands for a recreational purpose, as detailed in the Recreational Access Regulation, AR 228/2004, are exempt from prosecution for trespass under the Act. 4. As such, any prosecution arising from a recreational user’s entry upon such lands may only be conducted pursuant to the Criminal Code of Canada. While the charging section(s) would depend upon the conduct alleged, the following sections are most commonly applicable. 1. Section 430(1)© Section 430(1)© is engaged if it is alleged that the purported recreation user wilfully obstructed, interrupted or interfered with the lessee’s lawful use, enjoyment or operation of the Crown-leased land. As such, to support a prosecution under this subsection, there would have to be sufficient evidence that the person interfered with the lessee’s purpose in using the land (i.e., grazing livestock). 2. Sections 266, 267 or 268 Pursuant to s. 41(1), a lessee is entitled to use as much force as is necessary to evict a trespasser from the land. By virtue of s. 41(2), a trespasser who resists being removed may be prosecuted for assault or related conduct. Such resistance would not include passive resistance, but would include resistance by violence (e.g., by striking back). AND the Trespass to Premises Act Alberta From: http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/rsa-...2000-c-t-7.html TRESPASS TO PREMISES ACT Chapter T‑7 Table of Contents 1 Definitions 2 Trespass 3 Offences and penalties 4 Liability of driver 5 Arrest without warrant 7 Jurisdiction of judge 8 Exception 9 Other enactments HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, enacts as follows: Definitions 1 In this Act, (a) “authorized representative of the owner” means a person authorized by the owner to give notice not to trespass; (B ) “owner” means the owner of premises and includes the following: (i) the occupier of the premises; (ii) the person who is in possession or control of the premises; © “premises” means (i) any building or structure or any part or portion of a building or structure, including any land used in connection with that building or structure for the purposes of (A) providing parking for vehicles, (B ) displaying or storing vehicles, equipment or other chattels, © enhancing the appearance or use of the building or structure, or (D) carrying out activities that are ancillary to the activities carried out in or on that building or structure, and (ii) any other land not referred to in subclause (i) if that other land (A) is land to which the Petty Trespass Act does not apply, or (B ) is land that is not subject to a specific exception provided for in section 1.1 of the Petty Trespass Act; (d) “signs” includes posters and signboards; (e) “trespass” means a trespass committed under this Act; (f) “trespasser” means a person who commits a trespass under this Act. RSA 2000 cT‑7 s1;2003 c41 s3 Trespass 2(1) No person shall trespass on premises with respect to which that person has had notice not to trespass. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), notice not to trespass may be given to a person (a) orally or in writing by the owner or an authorized representative of the owner, or (B ) by signs visibly displayed (i) at each of the entrances normally used by persons to enter the premises, and (ii) in the case of premises referred to in section 1©(ii), at all fence corners or, if there is no fence, at each corner of the premises. (3) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person is deemed to have had notice not to trespass when signs are displayed in accordance with subsection (2)(B ). 1997 cT‑8.5 s2 Offences and penalties 3 A trespasser, whether or not any damage is caused by the trespass, is guilty of an offence and liable (a) for a first offence, to a fine not exceeding $2000, and (B ) for a 2nd or subsequent offence in relation to the same premises, to a fine not exceeding $5000. RSA 2000 cT‑7 s3;2003 c41 s3 Liability of driver 4 When a trespass is committed by means of a motor vehicle, the driver of the vehicle is guilty of the contravention of this Act and liable to the fine. 1997 cT‑8.5 s4 Arrest without warrant 5(1) A trespasser may be apprehended without warrant by (a) any peace officer, or (B ) the owner or an authorized representative of the owner of the premises in respect of which the trespass is committed. (2) Where a person other than a peace officer apprehends a trespasser, that person shall deliver that trespasser to a peace officer as soon as practicable. 1997 cT‑8.5 s5 6 Repealed 2003 c41 s3. Jurisdiction of judge 7(1) Nothing in this Act authorizes the Provincial Court to hear and determine a case of trespass in which the title to premises, or to any interest in the premises, is called in question or affected. (2) A case that deals with the issues referred to in subsection (1) respecting the title to premises, or to any interest in the premises, shall be dealt with according to law in the same manner as if this Act had not been enacted. 1997 cT‑8.5 s7 Exception 8 Nothing in this Act extends to a case where the trespasser acted under a fair and reasonable supposition that the trespasser had a right to do the act complained of. 1997 cT‑8.5 s8 Other enactments 9 This Act does not affect any other enactment relating to trespass. 1997 cT‑8.5 s9

Did you ever wonder why there are no dead penguins on the ice in Antarctica... This fact piqued the curiosity of a group of behavioral scientists who set up an observation post to study the matter. What is known is the fact that the penguin is a very organized bird who lives an extremely ordered and ritualized life.He mates for life and is extremely devoted to his family, and unlike most species of bird or animal he maintains a form of compassionate contact with his offspring for the duration of his life. If a penguin is found dead on the ice surface, other members of the family and social circle have been known to dig holes in the ice, using their vestigial wings and beaks, until the hole is deep enough for the dead bird to be rolled into and buried. The male penguins then gather in a circle around the fresh grave and sing.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . "Freeze a jolly good fellow..."

They nailed these idiots. Maybe the judge will decide it's time for a million dollar fine. Hooray for Youtube. http://home.mytelus.com/telusen/portal/New...;CatID=National

As far as I'm concerned if they're breaking the rules they're fair game. Maybe people would stop being idiots if their pictures were splashed all over the internet. http://www.srd.alberta.ca/lands/recreation...mping_Final.pdf http://www.srd.gov.ab.ca/lands/recreation/default.aspx Nice troll by the way.

WARNING VERY GRAPHIC Click here if the movie does not play.